I can see the bias from most people on the thread. Some are either pro west or anti west. I try to be as logical as possible when discussing issues like this. To answer your question, it's not so simple to answer a question like that without putting the history of the place in context. When you answer out of context then you get a very generic answer. For example, "Would have Britain being a powerhouse if they had not colonised most of the world?". Would America have become a superpower if Europe had not destroyed itself in world wars". These are questions you have to put context into. We can't have reasonable answers just by answering it out of context. Because even if Iran had focused on growing it's economy, we will never know if the US, China or Russia would not want a piece of that oil. And as long as one of them wanted it, the other would find a way to take it from them. During the cold war, you had to choose between capitalist or the socialist, and for you to understand why a country chose one, you have to look at their history and context. Even though Venezuela were unlucky enough to have horrible leaders, it had no agenda, it took no steps to enrich their Uranium, nor did they dream of having a nuclear weapon, but their economy was still not great. So I cannot sit here and tell you if they had focused on their economy and not cared about what had happened to them in their history or what they've done, then they would have had a better country because resentment for the Western worlds are not the only things that hinders the growth of a country. African countries have no resentment for the western world and are not involved in proxy wars, yet they are still not developed.
I can see the bias from most people on the thread. Some are either pro west or anti west. I try to be as logical as possible when discussing issues like this. To answer your question, it's not so simple to answer a question like that without putting the history of the place in context. When you answer out of context then you get a very generic answer. For example, "Would have Britain being a powerhouse if they had not colonised most of the world?". Would America have become a superpower if Europe had not destroyed itself in world wars". These are questions you have to put context into. We can't have reasonable answers just by answering it out of context. Because even if Iran had focused on growing it's economy, we will never know if the US, China or Russia would not want a piece of that oil. And as long as one of them wanted it, the other would find a way to take it from them. During the cold war, you had to choose between capitalist or the socialist, and for you to understand why a country chose one, you have to look at their history and context. Even though Venezuela were unlucky enough to have horrible leaders, it had no agenda, it took no steps to enrich their Uranium, nor did they dream of having a nuclear weapon, but their economy was still not great. So I cannot sit here and tell you if they had focused on their economy and not cared about what had happened to them in their history or what they've done, then they would have had a better country because resentment for the Western worlds are not the only things that hinders the growth of a country. African countries have no resentment for the western world and are not involved in proxy wars, yet they are still not developed.

I can see the bias from most people on the thread. Some are either pro west or anti west. I try to be as logical as possible when discussing issues like this. To answer your question, it's not so simple to answer a question like that without putting the history of the place in context. When you answer out of context then you get a very generic answer. For example, "Would have Britain being a powerhouse if they had not colonised most of the world?". Would America have become a superpower if Europe had not destroyed itself in world wars". These are questions you have to put context into. We can't have reasonable answers just by answering it out of context. Because even if Iran had focused on growing it's economy, we will never know if the US, China or Russia would not want a piece of that oil. And as long as one of them wanted it, the other would find a way to take it from them. During the cold war, you had to choose between capitalist or the socialist, and for you to understand why a country chose one, you have to look at their history and context. Even though Venezuela were unlucky enough to have horrible leaders, it had no agenda, it took no steps to enrich their Uranium, nor did they dream of having a nuclear weapon, but their economy was still not great. So I cannot sit here and tell you if they had focused on their economy and not cared about what had happened to them in their history or what they've done, then they would have had a better country because resentment for the Western worlds are not the only things that hinders the growth of a country. African countries have no resentment for the western world and are not involved in proxy wars, yet they are still not developed.

I can see the bias from most people on the thread. Some are either pro west or anti west. I try to be as logical as possible when discussing issues like this. To answer your question, it's not so simple to answer a question like that without putting the history of the place in context. When you answer out of context then you get a very generic answer. For example, "Would have Britain being a powerhouse if they had not colonised most of the world?". Would America have become a superpower if Europe had not destroyed itself in world wars". These are questions you have to put context into. We can't have reasonable answers just by answering it out of context. Because even if Iran had focused on growing it's economy, we will never know if the US, China or Russia would not want a piece of that oil. And as long as one of them wanted it, the other would find a way to take it from them. During the cold war, you had to choose between capitalist or the socialist, and for you to understand why a country chose one, you have to look at their history and context. Even though Venezuela were unlucky enough to have horrible leaders, it had no agenda, it took no steps to enrich their Uranium, nor did they dream of having a nuclear weapon, but their economy was still not great. So I cannot sit here and tell you if they had focused on their economy and not cared about what had happened to them in their history or what they've done, then they would have had a better country because resentment for the Western worlds are not the only things that hinders the growth of a country. African countries have no resentment for the western world and are not involved in proxy wars, yet they are still not developed.