Their affairs are our affairs

Post #18,920 by bluke 11/20/01 3:48:59 AM Reply	Their affairs are our affairs Who gives Egypt 2+ billion dollars a year which allows Mubarak to be President for life? Whose troops are sitting in Saudia Arabia protecting the royal family? Whose CIA overthrew the Iranina government and installed the Shah? Who is now giving Pakistan (a military dictatorship) millions of dollars to help the government stay in power? Who supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against Iran? Who just destroyed the existing government of Afghanistan? You can't just wash hands your hands of all this. The bottom line is that the US supports alot of nasty regimes all over the world.
Post #18,926 by hnick 11/20/01 7:20:57 AM Reply	Oh, quit whining... We are largely a society with a very short attention span. None of our leaders since Eisenhower (and I have my doubts about him) has thought much beyond the next election. We supported a number of political/religous intolerant thugs... we supported Israel... but I repeat myself... The Taliban was aiding and abetting terrorists, so they were targeted. We have no particular duty to Afghanistan. Our actions in Afghanistan and the ME in general are to further our intrests. Handwashing is a matter of personal hygiene. -H
Post #18,932 by bluke 11/20/01 9:39:27 AM Reply	Then don't be surprised that the world hates you You can't take that attitude and then expect the world to march to your beat.
Post #18,944 by hnick 11/20/01 10:54:31 AM Reply	Let's assume, for the moment, that you are serious.... The world is not united against the US. The Mid East has elements who are pissed off at virtually anything. Until we get free of oil dependency, we have to deal with it. The various societies that make up the population of this planet ALL work toward their self-interest. They support our policies when it is in their interests. They don't "march to our beat" because we're such nice guys. They want something. We have an oil dependency. The ME has oil. The ME is working solely toward their own self-interest. There is absolutely no altruism involved. Why should we be expected to be altruistic? Why should we be expected to work against our self-interest? You wouldn't be proposing something culturally insensitive, like perhaps daytime TV has turned us collectively into mush-brained retards, or something similar? You have a problem with us buying corrupt politicians in other countries? What, we're supposed to have a monopoly on corrupt politicians? Like we were told in the 80's and 90's when we whined that the Japs were buying America(ignoring the fact that the English already owned far more than the Japs ever could): No sellers, no buyers. No matter what we do, somebody will be displeased. We may as well try to please ourselves; we have a shot at that. -Hugh
Post #18,980 by Brandioch 11/20/01 2:01:36 PM Reply	Incorrect. "Until we get free of oil dependency, we have to deal with it. " Wrong. The oil dependency is the reason we KEEP interfering in their affairs. Getting off the oil would only mean we wouldn't have a reason to interfer (aside from treaties and alliances and such) (or moral issues). The question is whether we're working towards our short term interests or long term interests.
Post #19,017 by hnick 11/20/01 5:25:11 PM Reply	I was unclear Until we get free of oil dependency, we have to deal with oil dependency. Not anybody in particular. There are a number of ways to deal with it. While we are dependent, deal with it we must. I am not advocating any particular means of dealing with it. The powers that be, who laid the foundations for this mess do not consult me for my opinions, nor have they ever. The only reason I got in this thread was irritation at bluke's presumption that we should somehow, without the benifit of sainthood, please everybody in the ME, and support some mythical brotherhood of man ahead of our own interests. I think I'm done with this thread; please yourselves...

Welcome to IWETHEY!