If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Joe Biden: If you ignore that whole shutting down the Internet and blocking cell phones to stifle free speech thing, Mubarak is totally not a dictator   (csmonitor.com) divider line 187
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

869 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2011 at 4:49 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-01-28 10:47:34 AM

DarnoKonrad: wolvernova: If your problem is that it went off topic, take it up with the guy that was blaming the U.S. for propping up Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.

That's was on topic too, and the context is clear to anyone who draws the parallel between how we've supported Egypt and other regimes that have very little political freedom as well.

Pre-1979 Iran is another example.

wolvernova: [insert previous names you've been called].


And this is why when you call other people trolls, it's unintentionally ironic to the point of parody.


Wasn't there a guiding book that was written in the late 1970's that basically made the argument "right wing authoritarians-good, left wing authoritarians-bad"?
 
2011-01-28 10:49:41 AM

DarnoKonrad: That's was on topic too, and the context is clear to anyone who draws the parallel between how we've supported Egypt and other regimes that have very little political freedom as well.


I challenged the list of dictators he said we propped up (from which you characteristically derailed back into a conversation about Egypt, which I was not debating), so please tell me how we propped Pol Pot.
 
2011-01-28 10:50:05 AM

the_falling_duck: Wasn't there a guiding book that was written in the late 1970's that basically made the argument "right wing authoritarians-good, left wing authoritarians-bad"?


Don't know, sounds like something Milton Friedman would write though.
 
2011-01-28 10:53:31 AM

DarnoKonrad: the_falling_duck: Wasn't there a guiding book that was written in the late 1970's that basically made the argument "right wing authoritarians-good, left wing authoritarians-bad"?

Don't know, sounds like something Milton Friedman would write though.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896080900/fair
 
2011-01-28 10:54:27 AM
I can never imagine something like this in the US happening, Americans by and large seem either apathetic or part of the extreme left and right which aren't helping matters and only encouraging division so that nothing ever gets done. It is nice to know that people can still have an impact amid all the cynicism and apathy. Granted being cynical I am worried about the Muslim Brotherhood taking over power of Egypt. Trading one dictatorship for another. Ick.
 
2011-01-28 10:54:53 AM

wolvernova: DarnoKonrad: That's was on topic too, and the context is clear to anyone who draws the parallel between how we've supported Egypt and other regimes that have very little political freedom as well.

I challenged the list of dictators he said we propped up (from which you characteristically derailed back into a conversation about Egypt, which I was not debating), so please tell me how we propped Pol Pot.


After the Vietnamese liberated that god awful country, we still recognized the Khmer Rouge as the official government and gave it direct and indirect aid well into the 1980s to keep killing people.
 
2011-01-28 10:55:22 AM
None of this would be happening if the Pharaohs were still in charge.
 
2011-01-28 10:56:40 AM

The Homer Tax: Didn't we "prop up" Saddam Hussien during the Iran-Iraq War?


It is my understanding the US assisted both sides on that war because we thought it was best if nobody won.
 
2011-01-28 10:56:51 AM

Jacobin: None of this would be happening if the Pharaohs were still in charge.


Elizabeth Tailor is still alive. . .
 
2011-01-28 11:00:01 AM

DarnoKonrad: After the Vietnamese liberated that god awful country, we still recognized the Khmer Rouge as the official government and gave it direct and indirect aid well into the 1980s to keep killing people


Try again.

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

Khmer rouge ended in 1979, we didn't start giving aid to KPNLF (Khmer Peoples Liberation Front) until the mid 80's.
 
2011-01-28 11:01:06 AM

MugzyBrown: The Homer Tax: Didn't we "prop up" Saddam Hussien during the Iran-Iraq War?

It is my understanding the US assisted both sides on that war because we thought it was best if nobody won.


There's truth to that. But it's a distinction hardly worth mentioning.

From those people's perspective, which is the whole point of mentioning what miserable regimes we've supported, we sure don't come out looking like the champions of freedom so much as the faceless calculating superpower killing people off to support our geopolitical hegemony.
 
2011-01-28 11:01:09 AM
I wonder what the Arab world is going to look like if regimes topple? I imagine the most oil-rich countries won't follow suit - life there is much cushier and there's less impetus for mobs to rise up. But it does look like there's a sea change underway here.
 
2011-01-28 11:02:10 AM

MugzyBrown: The Homer Tax: Didn't we "prop up" Saddam Hussien during the Iran-Iraq War?

It is my understanding the US assisted both sides on that war because we thought it was best if nobody won.


Yeah, we did play both sides. Giving weapons to Saddam and then selling weapons to Iran (to fund the Contra in Nicaragua).

It kind of makes me sick to think about.
 
2011-01-28 11:04:02 AM

MugzyBrown: The Homer Tax: Didn't we "prop up" Saddam Hussien during the Iran-Iraq War?

It is my understanding the US assisted both sides on that war because we thought it was best if nobody won.


Correct, and his continued rule wasn't exactly enabled by the U.S.. Anybody that says the U.S. propped up Saddam is ignorant of what went on during that war, as well as the next 15 freaking years.
 
2011-01-28 11:04:35 AM

Edsel: I wonder what the Arab world is going to look like if regimes topple? I imagine the most oil-rich countries won't follow suit - life there is much cushier and there's less impetus for mobs to rise up. But it does look like there's a sea change underway here.


Eh, maybe Saudi Arabia will fall. It's only cushy for the folks at the top.
 
2011-01-28 11:05:46 AM

wolvernova: MugzyBrown: The Homer Tax: Didn't we "prop up" Saddam Hussien during the Iran-Iraq War?

It is my understanding the US assisted both sides on that war because we thought it was best if nobody won.

Correct, and his continued rule wasn't exactly enabled by the U.S.. Anybody that says the U.S. propped up Saddam is ignorant of what went on during that war, as well as the next 15 freaking years.


Bush 1 should have taken him down during the first Gulf war.

/Hindsight is 20/20 though I guess.
 
2011-01-28 11:06:24 AM

DarnoKonrad: From those people's perspective, which is the whole point of mentioning what miserable regimes we've supported, we sure don't come out looking like the champions of freedom so much as the faceless calculating superpower killing people off to support our geopolitical hegemony.


While I don't disagree with the gist of this, we ought to be a little less liberal with our definitions of "supported" and "propped up". When you expand it to include diplomatic interactions or sales of light weaponry, it sort of takes away the importance of more regretful, full-fledged propping-up like with Batista.
 
2011-01-28 11:10:48 AM

wolvernova: Anybody that says the U.S. propped up Saddam is ignorant of what went on during that war, as well as the next 15 freaking years.


I don't know, several billions of dollars in aid, and sale of weapons, dual-use technology, training, and military intelligence seems pretty "prop up"-ie to me.

If that's *not* propping someone up, I'd be interested to see what your definition of that *is*. Just because he spurned us later doesn't mean there was a point where we were if not "propping him up," at least significantly aiding him.

I'd love to hear your actual opinion on the matter if you'd like to state why you feel this way rather than simply being labeled "ignorant" for not necessarily agreeing with you right out of the gate.
 
2011-01-28 11:10:49 AM

the_falling_duck: Edsel: I wonder what the Arab world is going to look like if regimes topple? I imagine the most oil-rich countries won't follow suit - life there is much cushier and there's less impetus for mobs to rise up. But it does look like there's a sea change underway here.

Eh, maybe Saudi Arabia will fall. It's only cushy for the folks at the top.


For the top it fall ass backwards into money cushy.

Fro the average citizen it is still pretty good from what I hear.

the only way I see a revolt there is if the millions of non-citizen residents who do all the work get on board...
 
2011-01-28 11:11:33 AM

GaryPDX: Obama wants his own "kill switch" of the internet. Oooga Booga!


If you think that we don't have them already...you're pretty damn gullible.

Shutting down the internet and cell phone towers does not make one a dictator. Rigging the elections for the past 30 years does.
 
2011-01-28 11:12:40 AM

the_falling_duck: Eh, maybe Saudi Arabia will fall. It's only cushy for the folks at the top.


Per capita GDP in Saudi Arabia is magnitudes higher than that of Egypt, Tunisia, and Iran. The standard of living there (aside from brutal oppression) is not that bad. I doubt they'll revolt.
 
2011-01-28 11:12:54 AM

wolvernova: While I don't disagree with the gist of this, we ought to be a little less liberal with our definitions of "supported" and "propped up". When you expand it to include diplomatic interactions or sales of light weaponry, it sort of takes away the importance of more regretful, full-fledged propping-up like with Batista.


Oh, so it's more of a semantics issue for you?

I think you can prop someone up without them being a full-fledged toady puppet.
 
2011-01-28 11:14:46 AM

The Homer Tax: I don't know, several billions of dollars in aid, and sale of weapons, dual-use technology, training, and military intelligence seems pretty "prop up"-ie to me.

If that's *not* propping someone up, I'd be interested to see what your definition of that *is*.


South Korea. West Germany. Israel. Columbia. Places we actually go and spend decades supporting, endlessly. Like I said, when you want to include Pol Pot and Saddam with that group, you're essentially diluting your entire point. Hence, I think it's dumb/dishonest to exaggerate about who we're propping up.
 
2011-01-28 11:15:47 AM

wolvernova: the_falling_duck: Eh, maybe Saudi Arabia will fall. It's only cushy for the folks at the top.

Per capita GDP in Saudi Arabia is magnitudes higher than that of Egypt, Tunisia, and Iran. The standard of living there (aside from brutal oppression) is not that bad. I doubt they'll revolt.


Maybe the ladies will? Dunno, but I think the women of Iran have more rights than they do in Saudi Arabia (granted that neither place is really great).

Also, the middle class leads (or at least is a major contributor to) revolts, at least ones toward democracies that stick.
 
2011-01-28 11:20:49 AM
The problem is the people who chastise the US for 'supporting' dictatorships would also criticize the US if they did anything economically or militarily against these countries. See post Gulf War sanctions of Iraq as an example.

If the US stands up to Iran or N Korea, they're sabre rattling and war mongering. If they maintain good relations with Egypt they're propping up dictators.

What is the solution?

Should the US not do things in the US's best interest? Isn't why we elect them?

Perhaps supporting Egypt is preventing a extreme islamic gov't from taking power. Is that better for everybody involved?

If the US did nothing and let militant islam factions take over the mid-east and thereby take over a big piece of the world oil supply, wouldn't that be foolish?
 
2011-01-28 11:21:47 AM

wolvernova: The Homer Tax: I don't know, several billions of dollars in aid, and sale of weapons, dual-use technology, training, and military intelligence seems pretty "prop up"-ie to me.

If that's *not* propping someone up, I'd be interested to see what your definition of that *is*.

South Korea. West Germany. Israel. Columbia. Places we actually go and spend decades supporting, endlessly. Like I said, when you want to include Pol Pot and Saddam with that group, you're essentially diluting your entire point. Hence, I think it's dumb/dishonest to exaggerate about who we're propping up.


Should we even deal at all with dictators that we know are committing horrible acts against their own people?

I mean, if we knew that the Holocaust was happening in Germany, but were already in a cold war with Russia, would it have been ok to support Germany with open trade and "light arms" if they were aggressive toward the USSR?
 
2011-01-28 11:24:31 AM

the_falling_duck: Should we even deal at all with dictators that we know are committing horrible acts against their own people?


Depends.

I think in some of these cases it was more out of financial reason for the US than "lesser of two evile".
 
2011-01-28 11:28:20 AM

MugzyBrown: Perhaps supporting Egypt is preventing a extreme islamic gov't from taking power. Is that better for everybody involved?


If the people of Egypt want an extreme Islamic Government, I don't see why it's any of our business to prevent that.

The notion of actively opposing democracy because said democracy might result in a government that doesn't like us is...unsettling at best.

MugzyBrown: What is the solution?


I'd be happy if we started doing a whole lot more of "Minding our Own Damn Business." It might not be a soltuion, but it's a start.
 
2011-01-28 11:31:49 AM

The Homer Tax: If the people of Egypt want an extreme Islamic Government, I don't see why it's any of our business to prevent that.

The notion of actively opposing democracy because said democracy might result in a government that doesn't like us is...unsettling at best.


I would say the terms extreme islamic gov't and democracy are mutually exclusive, unless you can provide an example.

The Homer Tax: I'd be happy if we started doing a whole lot more of "Minding our Own Damn Business." It might not be a soltuion, but it's a start.


So doing nothing and letting people be slaughtered is ok with you? If what's going on in Egypt turns into a Taliban-style oppressive gov't, minding our own business is the best course?
 
2011-01-28 11:34:08 AM

The Homer Tax: If the people of Egypt want an extreme Islamic Government, I don't see why it's any of our business to prevent that.

The notion of actively opposing democracy because said democracy might result in a government that doesn't like us is...unsettling at best.


Because the problem with an extreme Islamic govt isn't just that they won't like us, it is the sexism, opression, etc.
 
2011-01-28 11:38:43 AM

The Homer Tax: The notion of actively opposing democracy because said democracy might result in a government that doesn't like us is...unsettling at best.


It's not that. It's that revolutions destabilize things. If the entire middle east gets all revolution-y then Israel might feel like this is a good time to add more land to their country, and then new fights break out and commerce gets disrupted and stock markets fall because investors get worried and it's just a big freaking mess.
 
2011-01-28 11:44:02 AM

MugzyBrown: I would say the terms extreme islamic gov't and democracy are mutually exclusive, unless you can provide an example.


If that's the case, then I don't see how backing a dictator against the will of the people will be effective at preventing an "extreme Islamic government." If it's actually a popular movement, chances are they're not going to instill the type of government you claim to be preventing.

MugzyBrown: So doing nothing and letting people be slaughtered is ok with you


It's not great, but I don't see "Preventing people in another country from getting 'slaughtered' through financial and military means" as a power of the US government as given to it by the Constitution.

To your second point, if this is an actual revoltuion, I don't see why the people revolting would instill a "Taliban Style Opressive Government" seems counter-productive.

The bottom line is that you think it's the job of the US to be the Policemen of the world, and I don't. I don't think the "Common Defense" clause is as broad as you do.

liam76: Because the problem with an extreme Islamic govt isn't just that they won't like us, it is the sexism, oppression, etc.


But the sexism and oppression of an Islamic Government isn't the issue when they *do* like us. See the aforementioned Saudi Arabia.

All that other stuff is Red Herrings. The bottom line is that people are scared that if we don't indirectly control or influence a lot of these governments, the governments will not like us. I don't agree with the notion of subverting the will of the people of a country simply because the resulting government may "not like us."
 
2011-01-28 11:45:04 AM
Well, looks like people are learning about Mubarak, which is good.
 
2011-01-28 11:48:25 AM

The Homer Tax: I don't agree with the notion of subverting the will of the people of a country simply because the resulting government may "not like us."



me neither.
 
2011-01-28 11:48:40 AM

MugzyBrown: The problem is the people who chastise the US for 'supporting' dictatorships would also criticize the US if they did anything economically or militarily against these countries. See post Gulf War sanctions of Iraq as an example.

If the US stands up to Iran or N Korea, they're sabre rattling and war mongering. If they maintain good relations with Egypt they're propping up dictators.


Very true.

the_falling_duck: Should we even deal at all with dictators that we know are committing horrible acts against their own people?

I mean, if we knew that the Holocaust was happening in Germany, but were already in a cold war with Russia, would it have been ok to support Germany with open trade and "light arms" if they were aggressive toward the USSR?


I guess it depends on our official policy of human rights at any given point, as well as our (in)ability to remain consistent. We're willing to make many exceptions for reasons of national security (oil for our economy, geopolitical strategy like in the Cold War, support of Israel, etc.). Whether that's really in our long term national security interests is certainly debatable.

MugzyBrown: The Homer Tax: If the people of Egypt want an extreme Islamic Government, I don't see why it's any of our business to prevent that.

The notion of actively opposing democracy because said democracy might result in a government that doesn't like us is...unsettling at best.

I would say the terms extreme islamic gov't and democracy are mutually exclusive, unless you can provide an example.


This. Look no further than Iran to see how that works out for those who fight or "vote for an Islamic society", then are whisked away and summarily executed (referring to the many non-Islamic factions that helped overthrow the Shah, and were later purged).
 
2011-01-28 11:50:08 AM

The Homer Tax: It's not great, but I don't see "Preventing people in another country from getting 'slaughtered' through financial and military means" as a power of the US government as given to it by the Constitution.


The Homer Tax: To your second point, if this is an actual revoltuion, I don't see why the people revolting would instill a "Taliban Style Opressive Government" seems counter-productive.


The Homer Tax: The bottom line is that you think it's the job of the US to be the Policemen of the world, and I don't. I don't think the "Common Defense" clause is as broad as you do.


I do not think the US should be the police of the world. In actuality I think the world would be much better of the free nations of the world stood together against the dictators, but that's not happening.

The law of unintended consequences. That's how the Taliban was formed. A real revolution against the Soviets and eventually the Taliban was the ones left standing.

That's how Iran was formed in its current state. That's how many dictatorships are formed.


Well it's up to you if you think the US should always try to do the 'right' thing or just look out for itself. However, the US can't lookout for itself and mind their own business at the same time.

Guess what happens if the Mideast is filled with countries that do not like us. Our economy goes to the shiatter because we can't get oil at a reasonable price. Don't think the EU is going to help, they'll gladly trade with nations who hate the US... see Iran.
 
2011-01-28 11:51:59 AM

Lando Lincoln: The Homer Tax: The notion of actively opposing democracy because said democracy might result in a government that doesn't like us is...unsettling at best.

It's not that. It's that revolutions destabilize things. If the entire middle east gets all revolution-y then Israel might feel like this is a good time to add more land to their country, and then new fights break out and commerce gets disrupted and stock markets fall because investors get worried and it's just a big freaking mess.


All this. The U.S. didn't pick Mubarek or put him in power. We don't have to like him any more than any of the other despots we have to work with. Having him chased out of the country by mobs and replaced by the next most ambitious and powerful strongman waiting in the wings (or worse by months of ineffectual political chaos from which the most passionate and ruthless emerge on top) isn't in our interests or (in my humble opinion) Egypt's.

This situation provides the opportunity for the U.S. and others to apply pressure and support for smooth but hopefully inexorable change away from authoritarianism.
 
2011-01-28 11:53:46 AM

The Homer Tax: But the sexism and oppression of an Islamic Government isn't the issue when they *do* like us. See the aforementioned Saudi Arabia.


So because america supports Saudi (which I don't like) I should be against the US opposing any Extremist Islamic movement? That makes no sense.

The Homer Tax: All that other stuff is Red Herrings.


See above. I am not saying the US doesn't have some hypocrisy but that doesn't mean I personally should have no concern over an Extremist Islamic Govt.

just because you don;t seem to be bothered by it either doesn't make it a "red herring".

The Homer Tax: The bottom line is that people are scared that if we don't indirectly control or influence a lot of these governments, the governments will not like us.


As I said above I don't care who they like. I can't speak for these "people" you are expressingt he opinion of.

The Homer Tax: I don't agree with the notion of subverting the will of the people of a country simply because the resulting government may "not like us."


Neither do I.

But has been explained to you a few times them "not likeing us" isn't the only outcome of a disposed Murbarak.
 
2011-01-28 11:57:10 AM

MugzyBrown: In actuality I think the world would be much better of the free nations of the world stood together against the dictators


But you don't mind dictators if their existence is in the best interest of the US.

MugzyBrown: Well it's up to you if you think the US should always try to do the 'right' thing or just look out for itself. However, the US can't lookout for itself and mind their own business at the same time.


I guess this is my point. Stop pretending it's about human rights, or any of that crap. Just stop. Stop pretending like you oppose "dictators" or whatever. Because you don't.

The bottom line is that you don't care about human rights, and you don't care about dictators as long as ignoring the human rights violations and supporting the dictators is in the best economic interest of the US.

Which is fine, it's basically standard Neoconservative foreign policy. I don't agree with it, but at least it's an ethos. I just bristle at this notion that there's anything motivating this beyond money, I don't think reality backs that up.
 
2011-01-28 11:59:28 AM

The Homer Tax: I guess this is my point. Stop pretending it's about human rights, or any of that crap. Just stop. Stop pretending like you oppose "dictators" or whatever. Because you don't.


If I could tell what other people were thinking I would use that ability to win at gambling instead of posting on Fark.
 
2011-01-28 12:01:16 PM

liam76: But has been explained to you a few times them "not likeing us" isn't the only outcome of a disposed Murbarak.


If Murbarak is displaced, will the only outcome be an "Extreme Islamic Government," and how do you know this? It seems like your entire position is based on a begging of the question.

It seems tiger-rockish to me. We as a country support this guy because we feel his presence prevents something that might not actually happen.
 
2011-01-28 12:02:23 PM

liam76: If I could tell what other people were thinking I would use that ability to win at gambling instead of posting on Fark.


You apparently have some powers of prognostication, since you are convinced that allowing this guy to be displaced will result in an "Extreme Islamic Government."
 
2011-01-28 12:05:31 PM

The Homer Tax: But you don't mind dictators if their existence is in the best interest of the US.


That's 100% counter to everything I've said

The Homer Tax: The bottom line is that you don't care about human rights, and you don't care about dictators as long as ignoring the human rights violations and supporting the dictators is in the best economic interest of the US.

Which is fine, it's basically standard Neoconservative foreign policy. I don't agree with it, but at least it's an ethos. I just bristle at this notion that there's anything motivating this beyond money, I don't think reality backs that up.



I would say sitting by and doing nothing as "x" government oppresses and kills their people, while having the resources to assist, is ehtically worse than what the US trying to maintain stability for economic reasons.
 
2011-01-28 12:09:38 PM

The Homer Tax: If Murbarak is displaced, will the only outcome be an "Extreme Islamic Government," and how do you know this? It seems like your entire position is based on a begging of the question.


You started the conversation (or at least it was the Weeners I saw) with the claim that the only reason the US is involved in places like Egypt is so they don't have a govt that doesn't like us, and in your opinion that wasn't a good enough reason to subvert the will of the people.

I am telling you that isn't the only outcome. Me pointing out another outcome (Extreme Islamic Government) doesn't mean it is automatically going to happen just that it si soemthing that needs to be weighed.

The Homer Tax: It seems tiger-rockish to me. We as a country support this guy because we feel his presence prevents something that might not actually happen.


tiger-rockish (tiger behind the rock?)

We support all sorts of things to prevent stuff that may not happen. Argue it is worth the risk or not, fine, but don't pretend that the only possible negative reprecussion is a govt that won't like th eUS.
 
2011-01-28 12:10:16 PM
Dammit Donny Biden, you're out of your element!
 
2011-01-28 12:12:38 PM

The Homer Tax: liam76: If I could tell what other people were thinking I would use that ability to win at gambling instead of posting on Fark.

You apparently have some powers of prognostication, since you are convinced that allowing this guy to be displaced will result in an "Extreme Islamic Government."


BS.

I never made that claim.

I acknowledge it is a possibility and am not like you pretending that the only problem with that would be that they don't like the US.
 
2011-01-28 12:15:20 PM

MugzyBrown: That's 100% counter to everything I've said


I'm confused, one of the very first things you said in here was chastising people who criticized the US for supporting Dictators. I interpreted that to mean that you don't care that the US supports dictators. Please clarify your position.

MugzyBrown: I would say sitting by and doing nothing as "x" government oppresses and kills their people, while having the resources to assist, is ehtically worse than what the US trying to maintain stability for economic reasons.


But governments oppress and kill their people all over the world. Look at Africa. But, we don't get involved in those places because there's no economic interest to do so. That's all I'm saying, call a spade a spade. The motivation isn't the rights violations, it's the cash.

liam76: We support all sorts of things to prevent stuff that may not happen. Argue it is worth the risk or not, fine, but don't pretend that the only possible negative reprecussion is a govt that won't like th eUS.


Ok, sorry. I don't think the risk is worth it.
 
2011-01-28 12:22:44 PM

The Homer Tax: I'm confused, one of the very first things you said in here was chastising people who criticized the US for supporting Dictators. I interpreted that to mean that you don't care that the US supports dictators. Please clarify your position.


I never said anything close to that. I critcized somebody for accusing the US of supporting dicatators because it's always thrown around as if the US is alone in these sorts of actions. The whole "western world" engages in the same sort of diplomacy. Look how EU nations help prop up Iran for instance.

The second thing I said is the US should be a beacon of liberty.

I think the US and similar-thinking nations should work together to advance freedom by not trading with the Chinas and Irans of the world without conditions. I think they should step in militarialy in places where dicatators are severely oppressing their people.

I think if there was a united international front on such issues, it wouldn't take long for dictators to start standing down.

But it's a bit pie in the sky.

The Homer Tax: But governments oppress and kill their people all over the world. Look at Africa. But, we don't get involved in those places because there's no economic interest to do so. That's all I'm saying, call a spade a spade. The motivation isn't the rights violations, it's the cash.


Motivations don't matter if you're doing the right thing. If we invade Iraq to get rid of a very dangerous dicator AND try to make money off it, I don't see the big deal. It's still a good act.

I'd rather the US pick and choose and try to accomplish good things from time to time than do nothing at all.
 
2011-01-28 12:23:09 PM

The Homer Tax: But governments oppress and kill their people all over the world. Look at Africa. But, we don't get involved in those places because there's no economic interest to do so. That's all I'm saying, call a spade a spade. The motivation isn't the rights violations, it's the cash.


Where was the cash in Kosovo?


If you ask any of the people here you are labeling as "Neo-Con" I am sure they will (at least I will) say that we should have done something in Rwanda and Darfur. You can't just assume that people support all of the US's decisions in cases like that as some type of proof they are hypocrites elsewhere.
 
2011-01-28 12:24:36 PM
I keep reading a lot of media reports on what is happening in Egypt, but I can't seem to find any information about why it is happening. "Our government is corrupt" is vague. Does anyone know the nature of the uprising? Is it similar to what happened in Iran, led by young progressives, or is it a fundamentalist uprising that wants to install a theocracy?

Sorry if this was touched on in the thread. I skimmed it, but don't have time to read every word.
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report