 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Yeah Horse, That policy of wanting people to be free and opposing terrorism is sure to bring the world down. |
"Free" is the word we use, but isn't the truth more akin to "governed by US-friendly rulers with enough political control to assure their maintenance of power?"
The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes. The only time the US even pays lip service to "condemning" such "allies" is if their behavior becomes so flagrant that it's obvious to anyone but a power-crazed dictator that it's a threat to the regimes stability.
When the US talks about wanting "freedom" in the rest of the world, it has no credibility whatsoever. The closest to freedom is "freedom for our elites to make whatever kinds of deals they want with US interests, regardless of the benefit to us."
With respect to terrorism, there's only shades of difference between various paramilitary organizations of nations we have historically supported, insurgent organizations such as the Contras which carry out attacks on nations we oppose, and the slightly more virulent *******s of the Islamic middle east. Car bombings haven't been in style for our past "friends" but summary executions, terror and "disappearing" are all familiar methods. What the US wants more than an end to "terrorism" is an end to resistance to US influence and the imposition or maintenance of US friendly governments, except whatever "resistance" is decided to be allowable under the political rules of our friendly, pro-US governments.
It's one thing to be an empire, it's a bit much for the US to be an empire, deny it, and claim everything you do is based on noble humanitarian goals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
"Free" is the word we use, but isn't the truth more akin to "governed by US-friendly rulers with enough political control to assure their maintenance of power?"
The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes. The only time the US even pays lip service to "condemning" such "allies" is if their behavior becomes so flagrant that it's obvious to anyone but a power-crazed dictator that it's a threat to the regimes stability.
|
Let see, we discouraged Iranian generals from leading a coup that would have reversed the Iranian revolution. We encouraged the fall of Marcos. We pushed the military rulers of Haiti out. We encouraged democratization in right wing regimes in south america.
Well i suppose every instance where we've pushed for democratic change in a friendly regime can be explained away as somehow fitting other strategic interests of ours. And contrasted with some support we gave for a dictatorship somewhere.
Im not going to defend all our cold war era behavior. Even post 9/11, when many of us who hadnt realized it before, came to see that we have a Strategic Interest in democratization, there are aspects of our behvior that can be criticized - for example our support for the government of Uzbekistan, and our "constructive engagement" with Saudi Arabia. But to say that "The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes." is just over the top rhetoric, that doesnt recognize the subtleties and tradeoffs in a dangerous world.
and the following "What the US wants more than an end to "terrorism" is an end to resistance to US influence and the imposition or maintenance of US friendly governments, except whatever "resistance" is decided to be allowable under the political rules of our friendly, pro-US governments." is wrong.
I am old enough to have lived through the contra controversy. When will Iran have congressional hearings digging into support govt support for Hezbollah? When will the parliament of Syria cut off funding for Hamas? Even without going into detail on the actions of individual groups friendly to us with the homicides we're discussing, this overlooks the fierce controversy here.
It also overlooks the changes in recent years. For example US aid to Columbia is conditional on cracking down on right wing paramilitaries, and the AUC is considered a terrorist group.
So MtG, what do you think? Do you think the people who blew up the convoy in Gaza are really concerned about Guatamalan death squads? Do you think they really want democracy in Palestine, and are offended that we dont support it? Do you think they want an end to Israeli occupation? Why then attack US officials who were there either to hand out scholarships, or to monitor the road map peace process - at the request of the Palestinian authority? How does that serve to end occupation?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-10-2003 20:25
|