President Ahmadinejad's 2011 speech to the UN General Assembly

[spot]

I note that the full text of President Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly this week is available here.

The whole speech is, as in previous years, full of interest and hope. If I may highlight one brief section, the Iranian President continues to present a coherent attack on Western arrogance. I've no intention of copying the entire speech but this is both representative and well worth discussing:human societies are yet far from fulfilling their noble desires and aspirations.

- Most nations of the world are unhappy with the current international circumstances.

- And despite the general longing and aspiration to promote peace, progress, and fraternity, wars, mass-murder, widespread poverty, and socioeconomic and political crises continue to infringe upon the rights and sovereignty of nations, leaving behind irreparable damage worldwide;

- Approximately, three billion people of the world live on less than 2.5 dollars a day, and over a billion people even live without having even one sufficient meal on a daily basis;

- Forty-percent of the poorest world populations only share five percent of the global income, while twenty percent of the richest people share seventy-five percent of the total global income.

- More than twenty thousand innocent and destitute children die every day in the world because of poverty.

- Eighty percent of financial resources in the United States are controlled by ten percent of its population, while only twenty percent of these resources belong to the ninety percent of the population.

- What are the causes and reasons behind these inequalities? [...]

Dear Colleagues and friends

- Don’t you think that the root cause of the problems must be sought in the prevailing international order, or the way the world is governed?

I would like to draw your kind attention to the following questions:

- Who abducted forcefully tens of millions of people from their homes in Africa and other regions of the world during the dark period of slavery, making them a victim of their materialistic greed?

- Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world? Who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?

- Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy millions killed and hundreds of millions injured or homeless. Who created the wars in Korean peninsula and in Vietnam?

- Who imposed, through deceits and hypocrisy, the Zionists and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries of the region?

- Who imposed and supported for decades military dictatorship and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African, and Latin American nations.

- Who used atomic bomb against defenseless people, and stockpiled thousands of warheads in their arsenals?

- Whose economies rely on waging wars and selling arms?

- Who provoked and encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade and impose an eight-year war on Iran, and who assisted and equipped him to deploy chemical weapons against our cities and our people.

- Who used the mysterious September 11 incident as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq - killing, injuring, and displacing millions in two countries- with the ultimate goal of bringing into its domination the Middle-East and its oil resources?

- Who abolished the Breton Woods system and printed trillions of dollars without the backing of gold reserves or equivalent currency? A move that triggered inflation worldwide and was intended to prey on the economic gains of other nations.

- What country’s military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world combined?

- Which governments are the most indebted ones in the world?

- Who dominates the policy-making establishments of the world economy?

- Who are responsible for the world economic recession, and are imposing its consequences on America, Europe and the world in general?

- Which governments are ever ready to drop thousands of bombs on other countries, but ponder and hesitate to send a bit of food aid to famine-stricken people in Somalia or in other places?

- Who are the ones dominating the Security Council which is ostensibly responsible to safeguard the international security?

- There exist tens of other similar questions and of course, the answers are clear.

- The majority of nations and governments of the world have had no role in the creation of the current global crises, and as a matter of fact were themselves the victims of such policies.

- It is as lucid as daylight that the same slave masters and colonial powers that once instigated the two world wars have caused widespread miseries and disorder with far-reaching effects across the globe since then.

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

- Do these arrogant powers really have the competence and ability to run or govern the world, or is it acceptable that they call themselves as the sole defender of freedom, democracy, and human rights, while they militarily attack and occupy other countries?

- Can the flower of democracy blossom from NATO’s missiles, bombs or, guns?

[Scrat]

I always said that man has a death wish. I suspect that in this decade we will go after Iran.

[spot]

Nobody, I think, could call him a coward and justify the accusation.

I notice a lack of posts here saying "that's not true", I was hoping to find one.

[gmc]

I would like to draw your kind attention to the following questions:

- Who abducted forcefully tens of millions of people from their homes in Africa and other regions of the world during the dark period of slavery, making them a victim of their materialistic greed?

- Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world? Who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?


That is hardly unique to the western world, the islamic world are just as guilty of trading in slaves and the impact that had on africa is arguably just as great if not greater than that of the europeans. There is also the reality that European slaves were traded even more so than african slaves over the centuries and arguably the aggression of the islamic world played a large part in the western world becoming so warlike and developing the technical advantages that made us dominant. What it boils down to is we won the arms race and ended up better armed, better organised and a lot more warlike than the middle eastern countries and yes the islamic countries.

For him to suggest that they would not have done the same or have never behaved in an imperialistic fashion or invaded other countries and destroyed their culture is a bit disingenuous to say the least. Empires have come and gone over the centuries I see no reason to apologise for what was done on the past. The real question is what do we do next and should the mistakes of the past be repeated or do we find a new way forward.

[spot]

gmc;1370670 wrote: That is hardly unique to the western world, the islamic world are just as guilty of trading in slaves and the impact that had on africa is arguably just as great if not greater than that of the europeans.Be precise. You don't mean Islamic, you mean Arab. The Iranians are just as happy to tar a few Arabs as they are to berate Europeans and their colonial offspring. Iranians were famed through the ancient world for freeing the slaves of conquered territories, that's what the return from Babylon to Jerusalem was all about. The old testament writers are rather complimentary to the Iranians for arranging their collective manumission and subsequent repatriation.

If you wanted to accuse Iran of colonialism - and then only on a local neighbourhood scale - you'd have to go back at least 2400 years. That, surely, is a pointless waste of anyone's time.

[-kg-]

I see one point which I sincerely contest:

- Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy millions killed and hundreds of millions injured or homeless. Who created the wars in Korean peninsula and in Vietnam?


Uh, yes...who was it that triggered WW1 and WW2? Who was it that "created" the war in Vietnam? Who "created" the Korean War?

I was under the impression that the triggering point of WW1 was Germany's invasions of Serbia, which was itself triggered by the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand of Austria.

WW2's triggering events are too obvious for me to even bother to address. Let it be stated, though, that the U.S. didn't trigger it, nor did they trigger the conflict with Japan during that same war.

That the Korean War was "created" by American administrators dividing the peninsula along the 38th Parallel after the defeat of Japan in WW2 is quite the stretch, but I will concede that such is remotely possible (but only remotely!). I do know that the first armed conflict of the war was the invasion of South Korea by North Korean forces and I don't think the US "created" that situation!

As far as the conflict(s) in Vietnam are concerned, that was a brouhaha that extends back into the late 1800s with invasion and colonialization by the French. We didn't come into that mess until 1950, and then only as Military advisors.

There are a couple of other points that I find "less than accurate," but as you were looking for "points of contest," how's that for a start?

[Bruv]

-kg-;1370756 wrote: I see one point which I sincerely contest:



Uh, yes...who was it that triggered WW1 and WW2? Who was it that "created" the war in Vietnam? Who "created" the Korean War?

I was under the impression that the triggering point of WW1 was Germany's invasions of Serbia, which was itself triggered by the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand of Austria.

WW2's triggering events are too obvious for me to even bother to address. Let it be stated, though, that the U.S. didn't trigger it, nor did they trigger the conflict with Japan during that same war.

That the Korean War was "created" by American administrators dividing the peninsula along the 38th Parallel after the defeat of Japan in WW2 is quite the stretch, but I will concede that such is remotely possible (but only remotely!). I do know that the first armed conflict of the war was the invasion of South Korea by North Korean forces and I don't think the US "created" that situation!

As far as the conflict(s) in Vietnam are concerned, that was a brouhaha that extends back into the late 1800s with invasion and colonialization by the French. We didn't come into that mess until 1950, and then only as Military advisors.

There are a couple of other points that I find "less than accurate," but as you were looking for "points of contest," how's that for a start?
I have no comment only to note you appear to be far too defensive (that's normal though) of your (USA's) position in the list.

Much has nothing to do with you (USA)

[Bruv]

gmc;1370670 wrote: That is hardly unique to the western world, the islamic world are just as guilty of trading in slaves and the impact that had on africa is arguably just as great if not greater than that of the europeans. There is also the reality that European slaves were traded even more so than african slaves over the centuries and arguably the aggression of the islamic world played a large part in the western world becoming so warlike and developing the technical advantages that made us dominant. What it boils down to is we won the arms race and ended up better armed, better organised and a lot more warlike than the middle eastern countries and yes the islamic countries.

For him to suggest that they would not have done the same or have never behaved in an imperialistic fashion or invaded other countries and destroyed their culture is a bit disingenuous to say the least. Empires have come and gone over the centuries I see no reason to apologise for what was done on the past. The real question is what do we do next and should the mistakes of the past be repeated or do we find a new way forward.


While agreeing with most of what you are saying, slavery European stylee and other forms can hardly be compared.

[spot]

-kg-;1370756 wrote: I see one point which I sincerely contest:



Uh, yes...who was it that triggered WW1 and WW2? Who was it that "created" the war in Vietnam? Who "created" the Korean War?

I was under the impression that the triggering point of WW1 was Germany's invasions of Serbia, which was itself triggered by the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand of Austria.


I'm not sure you've the same perspective as an Iranian. The answer's not "The USA", it's "The West" and Germany's a fairly core element of the West when viewed from Iran. Full marks for the Germany observation but that's as condemnatory an answer as any other from Iran's point of view.

Korea and Vietnam, if I may respectfully make the observation, would have been far better left to themselves. They would have become socialist instead of divided, they would have evolved instead of playing the same crisis moment for decade after decade, they would have stayed a part of the international community instead of taking on this US-applied label of pariah exis-of-evil (which, in the case of North Korea, I strongly suspect is untrue propaganda but that's a different matter).

The decision to send US troops to fight in Korea and Vietnam, accompanied by whatever coalition of the willing were owned as a resource at the time, was solely American and has been, in both cases and ever since, detrimental to the people living there. Trying to paste the blame for those mass troop movements on 19th century French Colonialism, for example, is simply ducking responsibility.

[-kg-]

Bruv;1370778 wrote: I have no comment only to note you appear to be far too defensive (that's normal though) of your (USA's) position in the list.

Much has nothing to do with you (USA)


You are right on both counts, of course. I became defensive due to a point further down the list:

- What country’s military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world combined?


I think the referenced country is quite obvious (though I'm not sure our military's budget exceeds a trillion dollars annually!). I should read more carefully and with more consideration.

spot wrote: Korea and Vietnam, if I may respectfully make the observation, would have been far better left to themselves. They would have become socialist instead of divided, they would have evolved instead of playing the same crisis moment for decade after decade, they would have stayed a part of the international community instead of taking on this US-applied label of pariah exis-of-evil (which, in the case of North Korea, I strongly suspect is untrue propaganda but that's a different matter).

The decision to send US troops to fight in Korea and Vietnam, accompanied by whatever coalition of the willing were owned as a resource at the time, was solely American and has been, in both cases and ever since, detrimental to the people living there. Trying to paste the blame for those mass troop movements on 19th century French Colonialism, for example, is simply ducking responsibility.


Observation noted, and I agree for the most part. In the case of Korea, though, I don't think the division of Korea was applied with thought of it being an "axis of evil." That was done after we had defeated Japan in WWII. Japan had, up to that time, occupied Korea. Korea was divided up much as Germany was, with Soviet troops occupying the north and American troops occupying the south.

As far as Vietnam, I never intended to lay the blame on 19th century French Colonialism. It's merely where said conflict sprung from.

Of course the decision to send (our) troops into those countries was purely ours. I was merely pointing out that those decisions were not the "triggering events" of those conflicts. I now realize that those comments were not all necessarily directed at the U.S. alone.

All of which makes no never mind. I agree that these countries would have likely been better left to their own devices, as with every country that has been occupied by foreign governments for centuries. Quite frankly, I realize that the U.S. has been the biggest recent offender in this area. We have enough hubris to feel that it's our "God Given Right" to do so ("We" being our government...I'll never admit to holding the same opinion!).

At the risk of sounding an apologist, I feel that past actions of our Government brought on the attack on 9/11. While the Pakistani army provided OBL with the training, the U.S. provided the money and weapons in his war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That "weapon" turned around and bit us in the arse...just one example of our hubris. I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever learn!

No, upon re-reading the points from a fresh perspective, I can find little fault with them, except in reflecting upon what was not said. I can't say that I can find Iran, et. al., blameless and without fault. I can only wonder what someone "on the other end of the stick" might bring up.

[gmc]

spot;1370672 wrote: Be precise. You don't mean Islamic, you mean Arab. The Iranians are just as happy to tar a few Arabs as they are to berate Europeans and their colonial offspring. Iranians were famed through the ancient world for freeing the slaves of conquered territories, that's what the return from Babylon to Jerusalem was all about. The old testament writers are rather complimentary to the Iranians for arranging their collective manumission and subsequent repatriation.

If you wanted to accuse Iran of colonialism - and then only on a local neighbourhood scale - you'd have to go back at least 2400 years. That, surely, is a pointless waste of anyone's time.


I was being precise. I don't think you can call the turks arab yet they ended up almost conquering Europe, I suppose you could argue they were the inheritors of the arabic empire. Iran was conquered by the islamic empires, mongol as well come to that, and became an islamic state itself. Iran managed to survive in the great game but to suggest they wouldn't have done the same had they been able is a bit naive I think. It wasn't just europeans raiding africa for slaves the arab and middle eastern nations were at it as well there was also large scale trade in Caucasian slaves. Literally, the area we now call Russia has a sad history of slave taking by other nations.

During the Tang dynasty the persians were sending blonde haired and blue eyed dancing girls to china where apparently they attracted much attention, I don't imagine they were there on holiday or had much say in the matter slavery was common throughout the world, still is come to that. I don't think any nation can truly lay claim to the moral high ground, Iran is an Islamic republic at the moment, left alone it would probably turn secular again but I reckon Iran and saudi arabia will go to war if it is left to the sunni and shia fundamentalists. be interesting to see what happens.

[Scrat]

Spot and GMC both make good points here. What really boggles my mind is why people still accept this status quo with America at the top, why people so easily go along with it. I think America does serve one purpose on a worldly scale, we're the biggest bully on the block we keep all the other citizens on the block in line. Russia does the same thing, they keep the peace and they crack heads when they need to on their turf.

I won't deny the fact that the world would be a vastly different place without America acting as a stabilizing force in general, I do however question the methodology and the goals/cost balance. Why don't other nations and peoples question this? The Iranian president and others do, who else will?

[spot]

gmc;1370800 wrote: to suggest they wouldn't have done the same had they been able is a bit naive I thinkIf the worst you can say of Iran is that if they'd have been able back in the Middle Ages then they'd have been bad... really. It has little place in analysing the chap's speech. It's wildly speculative, completely impossible to test and exposes you to accusations of inherent bias.

[Bruv]

gmc;1370800 wrote: It wasn't just europeans raiding africa for slaves the arab and middle eastern nations were at it as well there was also large scale trade in Caucasian slaves. Literally, the area we now call Russia has a sad history of slave taking by other nations.

During the Tang dynasty the persians were sending blonde haired and blue eyed dancing girls to china where apparently they attracted much attention, I don't imagine they were there on holiday or had much say in the matter slavery was common throughout the world, still is come to that.




I don't want to labour the point, but nothing compares to the scale and cruelty and the benefits to the west of the African slave trade.

All the countries outside of Africa with black majorities were populated by this trade.

[spot]

Bruv;1370838 wrote: I don't want to labour the point, but nothing compares to the scale and cruelty and the benefits to the west of the African slave trade.

All the countries outside of Africa with black majorities were populated by this trade.Just as every culture outside of Europe whose descendants now use English or Spanish or Portuguese as their official state language was obliterated by the slave-owning empire-builders. The slave trade transported slaves from Africa but enslavement by the colonial powers drew in aboriginal people too.

I'll except India. We didn't enslave there, we bribed, and we didn't manage to overthrow the culture. India was rather too big to colonise, we merely owned it for a couple of hundred years.

[Bruv]

Some of the reasons put forward as an excuse for the slave trade, that either the Africans were at it too, or that slavery has been about for centuries and still occurs now, so why should we worry about this particular period?

I shall say it again, no other shade of slavery compares with that highly organised highly valuable world changing trade.

I would go as far as to say no other single event has formed the world we live in today as much.

[gmc]

spot;1370825 wrote: If the worst you can say of Iran is that if they'd have been able back in the Middle Ages then they'd have been bad... really. It has little place in analysing the chap's speech. It's wildly speculative, completely impossible to test and exposes you to accusations of inherent bias.


Of course I am inherently biased - we all are. The real question is do we continue in the same vein as we have done or do we start working towards a better way of getting along. The world is globalised like never before, it's no longer as easy for governments to pull the wool over their people's eyes and persuade them to go to war. Doesn't mean they can't do it but it's getting harder all the time. The conflict between islam and Christianity shaped the world we live in just as the conflict between Catholicism and protestantism and the 18th century enlightenment shaped the Europe we live in. Quite frankly I'm glad we won because I live in the west and I'm not going to feel guilty for what my predecessors did I am only to blame for what I now. What is happening now is like a blast from the past in some ways, islamic empires gearing up to take on the Christian ones but that will only happen if we are daft enough to let it.

Posted by bruv

I don't want to labour the point, but nothing compares to the scale and cruelty and the benefits to the west of the African slave trade.

All the countries outside of Africa with black majorities were populated by this trade.


Try asking the carib indians or the native tasmanians if they think they were better off than negro slaves - they were exterminated. Africa is the most recent manifestation of empire, the romans conquered and enslaved entire nations the vikings did it, the Normans in england what is different about africa is the racism, that you can put down to religion. You couldn't enslave a Christian and early on in america there were plenty of instances of blacks becoming Christian and gaining their freedom in Jamestown they even owned property and kept slaves of their own but as slavery became less acceptable you had to find a way of convincing people slaves and black slaves in particular were less than human and therefore property from there it's not hard for a white Christian to believe that they were the master race it's easier when ranting on about all men being equal to believe those men you have enslaved are less than human than face up to the reality of what you are doing to them. Wasn't always so, the bible refers to black empires the equal of any other, although maybe the queen of sheba being black might have caused some upset the Romans had black soldiers in their army - one of the early Christian saints, saint Maurice the patron saint of soldiers, swordsmiths, armies, and infantrymen was a black man but his colour changed in the middle ages and pointing out the fact of his race has some otherwise good Christians spitting out their dummy.

quite frankly iranians and saudi arabians or anyone else for that matter are just not in a position to point the finger of racism and slavery at Europeans and claim their hands are somehow cleaner and in the past have never done anything we now consider barbaric, we've all been at it