dib8rman said:
Badassbab said:
You need to stop thinking as if everything we do is for the right reasons and for the benefit of world wide peace and stability. It's only purpose is to serve the agenda of the worlds wealthy business elite which make up a tiny fraction of the worlds population. They are all in bed together, set out to create a worldwide corporate plutocracy, with countries in the 3rd world mainly acting as service sectors such as to oil the industrialised nations. In fact what the worlds business elites do is very harmful to the US and indeed worlds population, they do not have our interests at heart at all. A few examples include terrible environmental degradation, the main contributers to the rise in Global Warming temperatures (a far greater threat than terrorism), massive increase of terrorism around the world due to our savage and holier than thou attitude with regards to foreign policy etc etc.
Look at all the terrible things we've done around the world all in the of either peace or stablity or fighting enemy A or warding off enemy B. It's resulted in greed, massive poverty, millions of deaths, instability, oppression you name it. So your quote about Winston Churchill does not bear fruit in the real world. Instead of looking through the eyes of some pampered millionaire politician (who wishes he was born an American), try and see it through the eyes of the average man, women and child who struggle everyday to make ends meet, who've lost a loved during war time, who can't get their voices heard because it's forbidden and can land them in jail, torture or worse death. This is the reality facing billions in this so called 'globalised' world we live in and this has to stop. The REAL democratic forces such as we've seen in Egypt are fighting for this and we've seen it happen before where a favoured dictator is overthrown (mass murderer Indonesian dictator Suharto anyone) and then suddenly when it seems impossible to support the favoured tyrant usually praised for stability and introducing neo economic liberal reform we abandon him (probably because the Military has- no dictator can survive without his military).The same horror stories we hear about Egypt was conjored up in Indonesia too (worlds largest muslim population now have a democratic say, shock horror!).
As for Nasser- not sure why your talking about him, I only broght him up to make a point that is it doesn't matter whether the Government is secular or a theocracy, what matters is whether its obidient. Nasser was a disobedient secular Arab nationlist so he wasn't our kind of guy. Saddam was our kind of guy during the 80's when the US took Iraq off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list (shows you how much that list means) and vetoed UN resolutions against him. And unsurprisingly Saddam committed his VERY worst atrocities when he was 'our kind of guy'. Didn't give a shit then, suddenly gave a shit in 2003.
About US military aid to Egypt....where US military aid goes...violence is usually increased tenfold. Israel, Yemen, Columbia, Pakistan...it's a nasty correlation. And exactly why does Egypt need $1 billion a year? To defend it's territory from the Muslim Brotherhood? Or to buy US fighter jets, tanks and IFVs (a kind of subsidy to US defence firms who are one of the most subsidised companies in the world)? A sort of bribe to keep peace with Israel and shut the hell up? I doubt there are any noble intentions. No point talking about what the Army would've been like if they had aid or no aid. Probably less well equipped and not as well trained, that's about it.
I agree the middle east has been in turmoil ever since the collapse of the Ottamon Empire and European Empires share a large responsibility. And did we have to overthrow Mosaddegh when he was democratically elected? Later on we would see Khomeinei....blowbacks a bitch.
Read the last paragraph and now read the below which you quoted.
"...is the country that will always do the right thing but only after trying everything else."
Do you still agree with it? Is it even true? ('will try everything else').
|
Wow, no sir, the Middle East was in Turmoil even before the US got there.
There is an old song:
"From the Hills of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."
The US had to form a Marine Corps and a Navy to deal with the Musselmen Barbary states who were part of the Islamic Empire but showed and celebrated and even awarded rank for piracy. History does show that the Ottoman was at it's best a leech on the world. But I guess that's another topic.
Now I see why you thought what you thought about my original post, it's called projection. You thought that by me saying what I said the message is how you would of intended it. I said that I can't see why they would want to get rid of Hosni Mubarak that is not saying they should do as I say. You my friend have a knack for telling people what to do, now you are telling me I should stop seeing myself, my family, my values, my ideals, you and anyone else who enjoys democratic civilization and those who combat barbarism or unrequited servitude as the good guys.
"And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, do you see how far the termites have come and how long and well they have dined, when in a group of free-thinkers someone can stand up and say that the problem is western civilization and not the Islamic threat to it, that is how far the termites have come." -Hitch
Ha, I'm surprised you didn't bring up East Timor, usually Liberals tend to bring that up. East Timor is an interesting example and would prove your point of a US funded genocide.
But I said defend themselves so it could be from the Muslim Brotherhood or even Israel. This isn't a world without borders just yet sir, there are steps that must be taken or others will try to take it from you. If you live in the US I'm sure you wouldn't understand that unless Canada declared war on the US =P Or Mexico tried to take Texas...
Old Country is a bit different Western Europe has only just begun toss away imperialism.
The Kissinger model or Tricentralism is not designed around imperialism it assumes that their are 3 super powers and that each must maintain the other in check. It's flawed as is anything with Kissinger but do you have a better suggestion to replace this Machiavellian policy which sadly seems to work; there hasn’t been a nuclear war yet.
Lastly I don't believe you grasp the irony in Churchill's quote in the least bit.
|
Your pretty confusing with some of your statements. Let's try and stay on topic and not romanticise peoples plight with fanciful quotes.
1. Yes I acknowledge the Middle East has been in turmoil long before US involvement. This was evident in my previous post.
2. Not sure why your bringing up the barbary pirates? I'm sure Turkish nationalists would say (enter any empire here) was a leech on the world as they can't see their own crimes. See what I'm getting at?
3. I'm not telling you to not speak to your family. I am arguing you and your antiquated imperialist attitude towards the rest of the world and I argue such attitudes which are prevelent at the highest levels of our Governments contravene human rights, justice, fraternity, liberty, democracy and all these things which we over here at least in some measure take for granted.
4. I mentioned Suharto the genocidal billionaire dictator responsible for the deaths of hundres of thousands of so called 'communists' and East Timorese. All this done in your name to protect your freedom in some fantasy universe conjured up in the White House and Pentagon
5. The Egyptian Military doesn't need a $1 billion a year to defend itself against the the unarmed Muslim Brotherhood or terrorists. There are much smarter and cost effective ways to fight terrorism such as introducing democratic reform, eradicating poverty, education and good old fashion police/detective/intelligence work. The whole world needs to demilitarise unfortunately the West, Russia and Israel are arming themselves and everyone else to the teeth. We as a world spend more than 10 times as much on killing machines then on aid.
6. The war criminal Kissanger and his model of tricentralism (if it exists at all) is clearly not at work. The US dominated NATO expanded it's borders further East. The US seeks dominance, not a multi polar world. This is obvious in any circles. But it is suffering serious strategic and tactical set backs which is also evident the question is for how long or is it permanent?
