The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[El Kabong]

You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.

[TitoFan]

You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.

You and Kirk get into some heavy-duty arguments, with multiple charts, figures, and whatnots being zinged back and forth. I tend to keep my arguments more generalized.

On U.S. foreign policy, my only point is that sometimes the best policy is no intervention at all. It is my humble opinion that the U.S. needs to pick and choose a little bit better where it intervenes and for what reason. This way, the U.S. won't be faced with choices about whether or not to leave "X" dictator in power, whether or not to use military force, when to leave and when to stay... and numerous other decisions, which yes... are usually unpopular no matter WHAT they are.

This is a delicate balancing act. We are no longer in the days of the Cold War. We no longer have the specter of the Soviet Union aiming their missiles at us. There are less instances where the U.S. "has" to intervene to protect Americans' way of life. There might be some instances where political and economic interests are skewed to seem like national security concerns.... and this is exactly what gets us in trouble with the rest of the world.

Yes, the U.S. is still the world's greatest superpower. But it's no longer a matter of "who cares what the rest of the world thinks." Thinking like that is not generally acceptable among great and open minds.

We can no longer afford fiascos like the search for the famous WMD. The world's not that stupid, and it offends other countries' leaders that the U.S. would think that.

[IamInuit]

They are both Colonialists. One having battled the other not to be colonized.

[Gandalf]

You are appeasing US foreign policy too much, Tito. America is really no different to Nazi Germany in that it invades countries without due process. These are the kinds of war crimes that Nazi's were hung for at Nuremburg. If you apply the same rules to the US then it is a war crime state and the leading proponent of international terror. There are no two ways about and Britain is equally responsible. Even in the case of Libya Obama should have been impeached. There was no due process for the US contribution.

Then you factor in policies such as extraordinary rendition, being able to kill anyone anywhere, Guantanamo, torture. America is a brutal and fascistic state and the level of disrespect of human rights and international law is unprecedented. One shouldn't excuse what is so appalling. You try telling the family of a loved one killed by a drone that it isn't so bad. You try telling the tens of millions killed in pointless open and secret wars since WW2 that it is just misunderstood. You try telling those suffering under dictatorships supported by the US that life ain't so bad.

It is a horrible country and global opinion would largely agree with me. You cannot argue with polls showing that most Euroeans regard America is the greatest menace to world peace. America must be so misunderstood. Those Arabs that agree must be so deluded. America could never wish harm upon the globe on an unprecedented level.

[TitoFan]

I think you're taking it a bit too far, Miles. Nazi Germany invaded other countries, because Hitler wanted to expand Germany's borders. He wanted to create something similar to the Roman Empire. The Nazis also committed heinous crimes against humanity, particularly the Jews, through mass extinction, based solely on this warped sense of race superiority on the part of Hitler. But there was another thread on Nazi Germany, and frankly I don't want to go down that route.

The U.S., IMO, is guilty of meddling where it does not belong. But as far as I know, it is not trying to expand its borders by invading any other country. If that were the case, Mexico and Canada would be the first victims. What the U.S. is guilty of is pretending to know what is good for countries halfway around the world, including those cases where said country poses no danger to America, or its citizens.

But not all interventions have been unpopular with the rest of the world, either. I seem to remember that when Iraq up and invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. responded, global opinion was in favor of the U.S. at that point. Then the U.S. took it a step further and invaded Iraq, in an effort to displace Saddam Hussein. THAT was not so unanimously cheered by the rest of the world. And of course there was the foolish and artificial "hunt" for the WMD, which of course were never found. When 9/11 happened, surely the global community must have expected SOME response. And again, at least initially, the world's countries we're solidly backing the U.S. That is of course, until George W. failed to capitalize on this new wave of good will by being his usual bumbling self.

But again, as with all arguments, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. No... the U.S. does NOT have to be involved in every issue outside its borders, as Lyle and others might feel. But there ARE legitimate interests that the U.S. must protect in the name of national security.

The REAL problem, as I have stated before, is that "in the name of national security" is a funny phrase, in that it can be distorted, misinterpreted, played with to serve political interests, etc, etc. And THIS is why I posted what I posted before.

But I agree with you on the drone strikes. Many of these are completely reprehensible. Keeping one U.S. pilot safe at home, weighed against killing scores of innocent civilians, well.... I don't want to stir up any shit, but I think this one is a slam dunk. It's not like the jet fighters of today are as vulnerable as the old fighters of WW-II. Again, back in the days of Iraq, I don't recall too many casualties involving jet fighter pilots. And those faced heavy fire from the Iraqis. You remove the human element from these strikes... you risk more innocent casualties. There's no other way to put it.

I don't mean to ramble (although that's exactly what I'm doing), but bottom line is this:

The world needs open and objective minds. Sometimes we are guilty of extremist beliefs, which cloud our better judgement and produce these broad, mostly inaccurate statements. If we're rational and leave our emotions out of it, we'll see that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

[VictorCharlie]

Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.

[TitoFan]

That was in response to Miles, I gather.

[brocktonblockbust]

KILL LISTS, ındefınıte detentıon, ıncarceratıon wıthout trıal, warrantless wıretappıng, NDAA, suspensıon of Habeus Corpus, dismissal of Posse Comıtatus, ınvadıng Lıbya wıthout Congressıonal approval, ınvadıng Iraq despıte 3 out of 5 members of UN Sec Councıl votıng agaınst the ınvasıon, "goıng ıt alone", etc etc.

[El Kabong]

KILL LISTS, ındefınıte detentıon, ıncarceratıon wıthout trıal, warrantless wıretappıng, NDAA, suspensıon of Habeus Corpus, dismissal of Posse Comıtatus, ınvadıng Lıbya wıthout Congressıonal approval, ınvadıng Iraq despıte 3 out of 5 members of UN Sec Councıl votıng agaınst the ınvasıon, "goıng ıt alone", etc etc.

The United States has to be willing to "go it alone" because in some situations it is needed, HOWEVER, we should pick our battles more carefully. As soon as we got involved in Egypt & more so with Libya and we made 0 attempt to help the Green Revolution in Iran it showed weakness on our part and we came off as meddlers.

The "reasons" we got involved so heavily in Libya is due to our Allies Italy & France who get oil from Libya and who gets called out for intervening The United States as per usual.

Egypt was fucking disgusting. I don't give a flying fuck what Mubarak did in his country all I know is that the guy kept the peace with Israel and that made our job all the easier for the past 30 years. And now we have the Muslim Brotherhood in power....oh, what a refreshing progressive change ....I'm sure they won't call for the destruction of Israel, I mean it's only part of their agenda to destroy "Zionism".

The warning I would give people is that the people "behind the curtain" of Islam in politics are counting on the good intentions of the socialists/leftists in America and elsewhere around the world. Sure they'll promise to be more advanced in their politics and be nicer to women and prisoners and so on, but once they get enough power they'll turn on those lefties and only the hardcore no drinking no dancing no fun Islamists will be around and well it's going to dishearten quite a few liberal idealists who thought "things would be different". You side with such groups at your own peril, the Gigi Ibrahim's (one of the "famous" bloggers of the Tahir Square demostrations) of the world will find out the truth about who they support and what they think of "Women's Rights" soon enough.

[El Kabong]

Pakistan Parents Killed Daughter for Eyeing Boy - ABC News

".....Oooooh how Progressive of them, gee I wish my country could be more like that" - said nobody ever

[Kirkland Laing]

The west in general. Now stop trying to change the subject and answer the questions you keep dodging. If you want to argue about just how much America is to blame for how it's hated in the Middle East fine, but give specific answers to these questions at the same time. Here they are again, for the third time :

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

The US has had friends that get a bit too comfortable in power, it's true but what would you have the US do Mr. Charts & Graphs? We could help overthrow the "dictator" but that's meddling....Well we could stop trading with them and levee sanctions against them, but that "hurts their citizens", we could let them vote and if that "vote" turns out to support the guy who has been in charge forever then what should we do? If we take action we're meddling if we don't take action then we're heartless, so Kirkland (and you are the PERFECT person to ask) how does the United States win in such a situation? Given your view I don't see a "winning scenario" but I also know that's exactly what your kind wants because for some reason you think perhaps the world would be better off without the United States.

Did I dodge your question? Will you continue barking at me in attempt to gain further insights on this topic or are you mollified? I certainly hope you got what you wanted out of this answer because I'm done reading your bullshit because here's the deal you want me to take 100% of what you post as the Gospel truth and yet I supply facts and statistics and ask questions and you don't believe my facts, pooh pooh my statistics, and never answer my questions.....so I'm done debating you.

You don't have to take any action to overthrow dictators, you just have to stop sending them billions of dollars of weapons and "domestic security" equipment and letting the dictators violently repress, torture and imprison hundreds of millions of people while still literally holding their hands.








But then if you did that maybe these guys would do oil deals with Chinese and Russian companies instead of American ones. So obviously America is going to do what's best for its oil companies and other companies with big business deals paid for by oil money. But don't try and dress that up as wanting to "help" people because it's offensive nonsense. You're literally holding hands with mass-murdering tyrants so your corporations can make big profits.

[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.

[TitoFan]

HOWEVER, we should pick our battles more carefully.

Yes Lyle... excellent. Good to hear you agree on that point.

The "reasons" we got involved so heavily in Libya is due to our Allies Italy & France who get oil from Libya and who gets called out for intervening The United States as per usual.

But here's my point. Let Italy and France fight their own battles. If it's Italy's and France's oil at stake, and they feel like invading or fighting Libya..... let them. This is where the U.S. needs to stay out.

The warning I would give people is that the people "behind the curtain" of Islam in politics are counting on the good intentions of the socialists/leftists in America and elsewhere around the world. Sure they'll promise to be more advanced in their politics and be nicer to women and prisoners and so on, but once they get enough power they'll turn on those lefties and only the hardcore no drinking no dancing no fun Islamists will be around and well it's going to dishearten quite a few liberal idealists who thought "things would be different". You side with such groups at your own peril, the Gigi Ibrahim's (one of the "famous" bloggers of the Tahir Square demostrations) of the world will find out the truth about who they support and what they think of "Women's Rights" soon enough.

Yes, you might be right on all counts. No one is turning a blind eye on civil right atrocities in some sectors of the Islamic world. However... the U.S. cannot take upon itself the role of policeman for the rest of the world. Let the global community condemn these acts. Let them take the lead. If and only if the global community requests help from the U.S.... THEN we can act. Again, it's a fine line to walk.

[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.