The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[El Kabong]

So Obama has changed that? I mean why else show pictures of only W unless you're some sort of hyper partisan jackass.

[Kirkland Laing]

So Obama has changed that? I mean why else show pictures of only W unless you're some sort of hyper partisan jackass.

No, Obama hasn't changed that at all. It's just that since guys like the one in the bottom picture started getting overthrown by popular uprisings and imprisoned he's been careful to avoid getting his photograph taken with any of the remaining ones.

But there is a good reason for using the Bush photographs. Bush was this guy -- from his second inauguration speech on the White House lawn :


So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.


and, hilariously,




We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.



All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."



and so on.


So you agree America should change its policy of propping these scumbags up in order to make money?

[VictorCharlie]

Tito,

I couldn't agree more we should have told France to go it alone but basically the called in their favor. We pulled the NATO mutual defense card for Afghanistan and they basically said you owe us on this one. The really glaring part about the whole thing is US military strength has basically allowed our NATO partners to become practically useless for any real combined effort. I'm not saying a British Para is a watered down version of our 82nd or Rangers but the fact that NATO couldn't handle Libya w/o us (our technology) is very telling. If it were up to me I'd pack up our shit and bring it home then tell the world they can go it alone for a while.

[TitoFan]

Tito,

I couldn't agree more we should have told France to go it alone but basically the called in their favor. We pulled the NATO mutual defense card for Afghanistan and they basically said you owe us on this one. The really glaring part about the whole thing is US military strength has basically allowed our NATO partners to become practically useless for any real combined effort. I'm not saying a British Para is a watered down version of our 82nd or Rangers but the fact that NATO couldn't handle Libya w/o us (our technology) is very telling. If it were up to me I'd pack up our shit and bring it home then tell the world they can go it alone for a while.

I think we're homing in on the root cause, Victor. The smart thing for the U.S. to do would be to address the NATO in the following manner:



"Look guys, for whatever reason, we're always seen as the meddling bad guys in conflicts across the globe. The whole purpose of NATO is to have a unified global power precisely for the resolution of conflicts in different parts of the world that could potentially spill over and affect other nations. Right now, you're (NATO) a bunch of wimps, basically depending on us, big bad U.S.A., to come running over and put out whatever fires flare up across the world. And for our troubles, we're hated by most of the Arab world, and a few other countries. This, in turn, helps fuel the acts of terrorism against our citizens, both in our own country and abroad.

We can't go back and undo the past. But we ask... no... we demand that NATO implements an action plan to strengthen its forces sooner rather than later, so we can go back to concentrating on our own affairs, and take a break from this bad guy image we've gotten. We're tired of getting shit all over us every time we're asked (or not) to come to the rescue. That is not our job exclusively. All other allied nations have to stop leaning on us, knowing we'll do the dirty work and get shit on in return."

Regards,
Uncle Sam

[El Kabong]

....I like to dream too

[TitoFan]

....I like to dream too

Which basically confirms the fact that the U.S. would rather keep its "ace up the sleeve".... meddling in handpicked foreign affairs that suit a particular political and/or economic agenda.... while crying about getting hated for having to be the world's "policeman".

[El Kabong]

Hey, don't complain to me, complain to Obama, HE thought it was a great idea....though I'm betting when Benghazi went down he wanted a do-over

[El Kabong]

No, Obama hasn't changed that at all.

Oh well that's nice to read at least you're not in denial over that.

[Beanz]

Miles you are blinded by your hatred. You are puffed up with the pride of feeling righteous indignation but we both know that you are simply cherry picking the same tired old arguments to align yourself with what you feel ironically is the cause of freedom and the downtrodden. Saddam was for over 20 years a totalitarian madman much more like Hitler and the Nazi racists in his widespread genocidal atrocities than the U.S or the U.K. You use the UN as leverage in your argument and yet you do not even agree with them. You pretend to be on the side of the powerless and oppressed and yet your ethos would leave the very same to be raped,tortured, imprisoned, and murdered by the dictators you accuse America and Britain of supporting. Should your ideas hold water then the Muslims would have been wiped out in Bosnia whilst the British and US watched and wrung their hands. Pacifism in the face of Evil is not a real world option, it was no more noble when the French let the Nazis take their Jews,gypsys,gays and disabled away than it was to ignore the people of Libya. It dishonors the noble martyrs of the French resistance and the civilians who suffered at the hands of Ghadaffi.

[Gandalf]

Miles you are blinded by your hatred. You are puffed up with the pride of feeling righteous indignation but we both know that you are simply cherry picking the same tired old arguments to align yourself with what you feel ironically is the cause of freedom and the downtrodden. Saddam was for over 20 years a totalitarian madman much more like Hitler and the Nazi racists in his widespread genocidal atrocities than the U.S or the U.K. You use the UN as leverage in your argument and yet you do not even agree with them. You pretend to be on the side of the powerless and oppressed and yet your ethos would leave the very same to be raped,tortured, imprisoned, and murdered by the dictators you accuse America and Britain of supporting. Should your ideas hold water then the Muslims would have been wiped out in Bosnia whilst the British and US watched and wrung their hands. Pacifism in the face of Evil is not a real world option, it was no more noble when the French let the Nazis take their Jews,gypsys,gays and disabled away than it was to ignore the people of Libya. It dishonors the noble martyrs of the French resistance and the civilians who suffered at the hands of Ghadaffi.

Greenbeanz, you are wrong. I have hatred for nobody and use only the influence of highly regarded scholars to make my claims. In the Nazi Germany/US similarities, there are marked similarities. Preventive war is preventive war and these are the crimes that Nazi Germany commited. The US dismisses the UN and Nazi Germany dismissed the League of Nations. These are nations beyond law and reason.

You are insane if you think Saddam was more like Hitler than someone like Bush. Saddam did not invade two independant countries and wipe out hundreds of thousands and injure millions. Saddam killed thousands and likewise tortured, but Bush and Hitler were on a far greater scale. It is nuts to say Hitler was more like Saddam than Bush.

Who is to say that I don't agree with the UN? On the whole I certainly do. Infallible no, but the closest we have to coherance. Even then still it has been grotesquely abused by the US and its strongarm mafia tactics. Sanctions on Iraq for how long despite it harming hundreds of thousands, 'but it was worth it' I read one high level spokesperson saying. Now sanctions on Iran. It exists for no other purpose than to demoralise and weaken before the inevitable assault. America will only attack if it thinks the opponent has no teeth. North Korea is quite safe in that regard.

I don't defend oppresion, but I don't think randomly picking a country and having our wicked way with it is a viable alternative either. Democracy, but only the party we want in place is not a credible means to an end either. Hamas was elected in Palestine and thus was forced to pay the penalty for not choosing the Amercan option. Sorry, but being labelled a terrorist by the worlds leading proponent of state terror really doesn't have any meaning.

In the case of Libya, well sure, get involved but don't decide it on your own in The White House. And then don't ignore Syria and say we cannot get involved. Don't ignore Bahrain. Don't continue to be best mates with the brutal Saudi regime. It is hypocrisy and unfortunately because of the clever forms of indoctrination we have in Britain and America, we are not supposed to think outside of the history winners mindset. Our nations are appalling and it doesn't take hatred to say as much. It is an entirely reasoned and rational point of view. We are power abusers and bullies and deserve a bloody good kick in the balls.

[VictorCharlie]

Saddam attacked both Iran and Kuwait.

[Gandalf]

Saddam attacked both Iran and Kuwait.

Saddam attacked Iran with the backing of whom exactly? Several billion dollars in aid and the means to produce WMD which was later used as the justification to invade Iraq despite a decade of crippling sanctions and military dismantling.

Just a little bit of hypocrisy, methinks. Do you guys really believe any of this stuff you come up with?

[VictorCharlie]

You said "Saddam did not invade two independant countries"

I responded pointing out your were wrong. You know those facts you like to debate with? That wasn't one of them. Now I have to get back to reading Mein Kampf.