Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Akratus, Jan 7, 2015.
They had no Oil. Dude, has Kissinger not taught you well enough?
So, can we all agree that this is a fucked up thing?
And the US is allied with them.
Saudi Arabia is one of the worst countries in the world, I don't think many are disputing that. And it is indeed a US ally. UAE is also a depressing place, where in some instances tourists get public lashings. That has to ruin your vacation so much
America, most middle-eastern governments, they're all engaging in powerplay or immoral behavior on a certain scale. Ye oft mentioned military industrial complex and whatnot too.
And that's the reason why I internally (sometimes externally) call BS if people mention morals when it comes to international politics. Nations do not have friends or enemies, only interests. The US (and Europe, likewise) will readily deal with some of the worse regimes on earth, including Saudi Arabia, China and the banana republics installed by the CIA, if it means the ressources and cash are flowing.
I actually just read Shook Hands with the Devil, Roméo Dallaire's acount of the Rwandan genocide (he was commander of the blue helmet task force for the duration of the genocide, had severe PTSD from the experience), and he does a good job bringing to light the blatant hypocrisy that the UN in general, and the West in particular, have when it comes to foreign policy. When it comes to stopping a genocide (you know, what with the ''crimes against humanity', and ''Never Again'' stuff we made up after the Holocaust), the US and France (among others) practically need to have their face pressed into a mountain of bodies to recognize it, and even then they will happily dance around the issue because ''oh, it's not a real genocide, hundreds of thousands of people are being massacred with machetes because it's a national holiday over there'' or some other excuse.
But when it comes to petty power games, such as in the two wars in Irak, oh well that's different. The Fate Of The Free World is at stake, brothers! America Fuck Yeah, God Save The Queen, Vive La France and Semper Fi, because now shit is going down and those thousands of billions of taxpayer money are being put to good use bombing Muslims with white phosphorus while we wonder why they hate our guts, yall. Fuck those people in Rwanda trying to stop lunatics from chopping off a baby's arms in front of their parents, hand them 20 millions with a grudge, they can handle this stuff, Freedom (and votes) Awaits!
Do I sound bitter? I am bitter. Also a bit drunk. But while I fully admit that (for all our faults) the West and assorted States are a pretty good place in terms of internal policy, in terms of foreign affairs there really isn't anyone that can claim any sort of moral high ground, unless you're Sweden or Canada or somesuch and cannot act a lot anyway*.
*I'm Canadian, before anyone gets upset.
Pretty much what I believe as well. Well ranted. And it gets really funny when you consider the roots of many regimes and organisations. Even if it is 30 years in the past. But it is not rare that many of the groups, dictators and criminals we fight today got their education from us, from our intelligence agencies or military advisors. A lot of it has its root in the cold war when the Soviets have been the worst enemy for everyone.
It is just a movie, but really, I can't help it but really think that it fitts somewhat to the situation, just as how they described it in Charlie Wilson's war.
Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983:
Article on Osama from 1993:
The US would have been an even more hegemonic power today if they purely acted in their own interests. In general, trade agreements are more profitable than wars, terrorism and embargoes.
I don't know who, but I heard someone once suggest that the key to world peace is indeed heightened world trade. That is, not just more, but a dependance on it. A war would destroy profit.
But I suppose they already do. Those who carry out war simply find reasons stronger than their nation's economy. Butt for america I suppose war was, or is, a commercial interest. Oil indeed. But still, America wouldn't have invaded an oil-providing nation (or a nation, militia or terrorist organization, threatening an oil providing nation) if it were their neighbour and the economy would suffer for it. There's way more factors in all of this that just make me realize how ignorant I am on the subjects of economy, war and everything in between.
I am not that optimistic with trade leading to more peace. It makes the case of world wars less likely, yes, but it doesnt have to mean that there would be less conflicts. The situations we talk about really can't be compared to WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc. where you have millions of soldiers on each side shelling each other to kingdom come. Those kind of conflicts are less likely. A war between Russia and the USA for example? Or China? Or wars between nations like Germany and France? It would ruin any economy between those nations and it would have always the risk of nuclear weapons used in the conflict. But as far as trade goes, there are many companies today which have a high interest in some regions, like the Ukraine where it isn't just about peace for the civlians there or their protection but also about pipelines. Or simply the Oil in the middle east. Economic reasons caused the issues between Cuba and the US which lead in the end almost to a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.
Trade for it self has not always to mean that we will have more peace in the world. Not to mention that exactly those nations that have a lot of world trade are also those nations that sell the most weapons ... what a coinsidence. And the weapon industry is among those industries which spend the most money with lobbying. At least in the US. But it is also pretty big in Europe. At least for Britain, Germany and France.
My personal favorite is Rambo 3, which at the end of the film has a big fat dedication to the ''freedom fighters of Afghanistan'' who fought against the Soviets. You know, the same guys who then took control of the country and have been fighting American forces since 2001 and have thus been dubbed insurgents, terrorists and whatnot. Sure is incredible how quickly morals change, eh?
To be fair though, the people we talk about have been simply the wining faction in the Afghan conflicts after the Soviets left the nation, so many people there have been suffering from them as well. The fanatics took over and there have been warlords/groups fighting those factions, the Taliban and Al Quaida. Many of the common people simply had no other choice and kinda had to deal with the situation one way or another and to accept the new rulers. Probably none of those factions would have been really friendly, particularly against foreign forces, but that is hardly a surprise considering the Afghan history. You really can't blame them for hating us after such a long and violent history of occupation, wars and all that.
That is why I call our sense of history and moral extremly selective. When it comes to our own history we never get tired to mention how not all people have been criminals in our history, not every German was a Nazi, not every Brit/French a colonialist, not every US American a slaver and so on. We simply differentiate. But we are very quick in our judgement when it comes to other nations, so much that even people with academic background mix all kinds of situations together calling it a culture war where they make for example no difference between cultures and religions. Which is not only absolute bulshit but also very dangerous. There is no such thing as a culture war.