Obama must accept "the will of the Arab people"

[DogOnPorch]

I've noted similar responses elsewhere, and often, over charges of Western collusion with invasions, despotism and terrorism.

But surely, that these things occur routinely does not absolve us of responsibility for our own part in it?

That is, if mass murders, terrorism, etc are occurring, how can we rationally claim that our own culpability is trivial, simply because such things occur anyway without our help?

They occur without our help...but if and when we do help, we are responsible for that. Obviously.

I contend that East and West have been at odds since Marathon. Sometimes more...sometimes less. Worrying too much about how it came to this or if we should feel some deep sense of guilt is not helpful. Nor does it take into account that other forces are busy supporting the 'other side' in what amounts to a Great Game that you lose at your peril. Reality is an AK-47 pointing at you.

MH: Luckily George W Bush had a higher view of humanity than you when he stated that he wanted to bring democracy to the region.

George Bush Jr thinks Uranus is a body part. But, thanks for trotting him out as some sort of defender of what's right...lol. That was pretty funny.

[GostHacked]

That's a side question. The point is that GWB did not say "who cares about the middle east" ? He said let's try to put some kind of real democracy in place. As for outside forces - if they put somebody into power maybe they can help set things right as well ?

But it really is not a side question. The west tried to bring democracy through direct force in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Arab spring was facilitated by western backed rebels to topple those regimes. Giving the air of 'democracy from within' when in fact is is again influenced by outside sources and not a true genuine democratic movement from the people.

Without wining the hearts and minds of the populace, the person that is put in will look like a puppet for the invaders than a champion of democracy for their own people. We can also look at Afghanistan which has Sharia Law under the new government same as was under the Taliban. Is that what democracy looks like? We give them a chance to select something other than Sharia Law and they chose,,, Sharia Law? What was our goal again? Oh right, Karzai was a big man in the oil business.

Edited November 13, 2012 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Is that what democracy looks like? We give them a chance to select something other than Sharia Law and they chose,,, Sharia Law? What was our goal again? Oh right, Karzai was a big man in the oil business.

Yep. That is what democracy looks like - and it's the "they chose" that does it.

[Michael Hardner]

George Bush Jr thinks Uranus is a body part. But, thanks for trotting him out as some sort of defender of what's right...lol. That was pretty funny.

Right-of-centre posters usually like him. I guess you are the exception. I never thought he was stupid, and was actually ambivalent towards his leadership but ok.

I do think that there's something positive and uniquely American in wanting to advance Democracy in the way he did.

[Michael Hardner]

Without wining the hearts and minds of the populace, the person that is put in will look like a puppet for the invaders than a champion of democracy for their own people.

That depends 100% on the details. Iraq and Afghanistan, Egypt, Lybia - each case is unique. But how many had elections that were anything *like* free elections ten years ago ?

[GostHacked]

That depends 100% on the details. Iraq and Afghanistan, Egypt, Lybia - each case is unique. But how many had elections that were anything *like* free elections ten years ago ?

What makes you think they are free elections now? And if the country continues to go back to the way they had it before, what makes anyone think we can actually change those countries and political climates? We waste money, resources and most importantly the lives of many soldiers only to have the country chose the same type of government it had before.

Real change comes from within, not through the influence of the outside.

[Guest American Woman]

That depends 100% on the details. Iraq and Afghanistan, Egypt, Lybia - each case is unique. But how many had elections that were anything *like* free elections ten years ago ?

Speaking of Libya, the results of a recent gallop poll show that 54% of Libyans say they hold a favorable view of U.S. - and that's compared to 53% of Canadians. Seems as if they appreciate our "intervention."

[Michael Hardner]

What makes you think they are free elections now?

Egypt elected something called 'The Muslim Brotherhood'

The US wasn't behind that one, for sure.

And if the country continues to go back to the way they had it before, what makes anyone think we can actually change those countries and political climates? We waste money, resources and most importantly the lives of many soldiers only to have the country chose the same type of government it had before.

Real change comes from within, not through the influence of the outside.

Giving people rights and power to change their regime isn't 'influencing from the outside'. It's the opposite.

[GostHacked]

Egypt elected something called 'The Muslim Brotherhood'

The US wasn't behind that one, for sure.

Giving people rights and power to change their regime isn't 'influencing from the outside'. It's the opposite.

Freedom is not given. People need to take their own freedom. The USA of all countries knows what that is about, but yet does quite the opposite. They claim they can give other countries freedom.

[Guest American Woman]

Freedom is not given. People need to take their own freedom. The USA of all countries knows what that is about, but yet does quite the opposite. They claim they can give other countries freedom.

Again. Libya apparently appreciates it.

[Michael Hardner]

Freedom is not given. People need to take their own freedom. The USA of all countries knows what that is about, but yet does quite the opposite. They claim they can give other countries freedom.

Hmmm...

France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Austria, and Germany.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100308130142AAXtqME

[dre]

That depends 100% on the details. Iraq and Afghanistan, Egypt, Lybia - each case is unique. But how many had elections that were anything *like* free elections ten years ago ?

Well democracy was never the goal, it was just one of the justifications thrown out there, sorta like WMD's.

Its really more about rolling the dice. The west has no real preference between dictatorship and democracy in the middle east, they just want states that they can work with. If the autocracies are willing to work with the west thats the best option because you dont have to come to terms with a new government elected by an anti western population every few years. Thats why theres no calls for democracy in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait.

Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with it, besides being a good way to appeal to people in the WEST to support.

[DogOnPorch]

South Korea...but not South Viet-Nam.

[dre]

Giving people rights and power to change their regime isn't 'influencing from the outside'. It's the opposite.

No that makes no sense at all. Even though a lot of these scenarios are characterized as one man or group running roughshod over the population this is almost never the case. Generally what we end up doing is picking one side in a civil war against the other. In Libya its possible what we chose for them is Islamic government over a military dictatorship.

If we take the FSA's side in Syria we will be picking a terrorist organization with ties to Alqeada over a Dictatorship, in a country where the population itself is split between the two.

Seems to me the only way you can say this isnt "influencing" things is if you completely throw out the literal definition of the word "influence" and replace it with some other definition.

[WIP]

The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017, the West's energy agency said on Monday, predicting Washington will come very close to achieving a previously unthinkable energy self-sufficiency.

http://news.yahoo.co...-132331660.html

But yeah, it's all about the oil. Why else would the U.S. have wanted to oust a nice guy like Saddam?

No it won't, but rather than address the mirage of including shale oil plays in with proven oil reserves here, I started a new thread on the topic: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21868

[bleeding heart]

I contend that East and West have been at odds since Marathon. Sometimes more...sometimes less. Worrying too much about how it came to this or if we should feel some deep sense of guilt is not helpful. Nor does it take into account that other forces are busy supporting the 'other side' in what amounts to a Great Game that you lose at your peril. Reality is an AK-47 pointing at you.

That's justification through generaltiies. Each particular case must be judged on its own merits...and demerits.

Western--especially crucial US--support for 25 years of mass murder in East Timor by the Indonesians had nothing to do with any guns pointed at the US.

Hell, no one (except Indonesia itself, for a time) has even tried to portray E. Timor as a threat.

The only "peril" ever floated was the "threat" of them going to the Soviets...of which there is zero evidence. In fact, the popular anti-colonialist forces devised a constitution inspired by those of the Western democracies, whom the East Timorese declared "our natural allies."

Little did they know that we were going to take the side of the Imperial State terrorists next door, and aid in attempts to wipe them out.

[GostHacked]

Hmmm...

http://answers.yahoo...08130142AAXtqME

Let's see that was part of a major world war in which the USA stayed out until the attack at Pearl Harbour,.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Little did they know that we were going to take the side of the Imperial State terrorists next door, and aid in attempts to wipe them out.

Of course they knew, as it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what Suharto would do with U.S. provided arms. The interests of the USA, UK, and Australia were more important at the time compared to East Timor's independence. Portugal bungled the transition as well. Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton consistently defaulted to preserving relations with Indonesia until military ties were severed.

[Michael Hardner]

Seems to me the only way you can say this isnt "influencing" things is if you completely throw out the literal definition of the word "influence" and replace it with some other definition.

If you're putting in something like democracy over a strongman, then you're giving them the start to influencing from the inside.

[DogOnPorch]

That's justification through generaltiies. Each particular case must be judged on its own merits...and demerits.

Western--especially crucial US--support for 25 years of mass murder in East Timor by the Indonesians had nothing to do with any guns pointed at the US.

Hell, no one (except Indonesia itself, for a time) has even tried to portray E. Timor as a threat.

The only "peril" ever floated was the "threat" of them going to the Soviets...of which there is zero evidence. In fact, the popular anti-colonialist forces devised a constitution inspired by those of the Western democracies, whom the East Timorese declared "our natural allies."

Little did they know that we were going to take the side of the Imperial State terrorists next door, and aid in attempts to wipe them out.

I did mean what I said. The mysterious East has always been a source of all things exotic to the West. From spices to religion to plagues to 'barbarian hordes'. I'd say it probably goes back further than Marathon...but that's more or less when folks started getting serious about writing things down. It is perhaps a Western-centric POV...but I'm guessing somewhere on this planet, a poster going by Camel-In-Tent or some such is echoing my opinion in reverse...and the Wheel of Fortune spins 'round.

[DogOnPorch]

Let's see that was part of a major world war in which the USA stayed out until the attack at Pearl Harbour (sic),.

Who footed the bill for WW2?

[dre]

Who footed the bill for WW2?

A whole shitload of people.

[DogOnPorch]

A whole shitload of people.

Incorrect.

[dre]

Incorrect.

[DogOnPorch]

Yup...ka-ching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GARIOA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARE_%28relief_agency%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan