Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reggie on May 25, 2011 at 12:04am

Yes, because the West would never do anything to stifle democracy or progress in other countries for economic gain.  Vanity, thy name is hegemony!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Karp on May 25, 2011 at 8:36am

I agree Reggie.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on May 25, 2011 at 2:10am

I agree with you Bryan. Ignore the naysayers. The reason why so many people in the middle east are now yearning for freedom is directly because of the sacrifices of our troops by giving the people the opportunity to live in freedom and decide on their own future. I agree with your premise :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on May 25, 2011 at 4:44am

... giving the people the opportunity to live in freedom and decide on their own future.

 

You mean, like Operation Ajax? Without it, Iran might well have been a secular democracy today. Talk about wasted opportunities. We often don't like it when people in the Middle East try to achieve freedom their own way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on May 25, 2011 at 4:51am

People like you are still stuck living in the past without realizing that we have progressed and moved forward into the 21st century. 40+ years ago we had segregation in parts of our country, now we have a black President. Back then, European countries were fighting with each other and hated each other but now they are all good friends and part of the European Union. Saying this, the Ajax operation has been shown in the fact that the CIA plot was thwarted before it could have even taken effect by Mossadeq forces. In addition, Mossadeq was himself becoming dictatorial and may have aligned with the Soviets. Regardless of what happened in 1953, we are in the year 2011 and have evolved. In contrast, unfortunately my homeland has been occupied by terrorists and has done something unique: de-evolution. The fact of the matter is that Iran of 2500 years ago had more human rights and dignity than Iran of today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on May 25, 2011 at 6:07am

(1) Ajax was part of a series of events that started with the Abadan blockade and culminated with the ousting of Mossadegh and the transition to an authoritarian regime, so in the end, it was indeed succesful. But even that is besides the point: it's the intent behind Ajax I'm pointing out here, and it certainly wasn't aimed at promoting freedom and democracy in the ME. (Besides, I'm aware that Mossadegh leaned towards dirigism in the end, but it's hardly surprsing in a crisis context. As is an hypothetical eventual alignment with the USSR.)

 

(2) I brought up Ajax just because your profile says you visited Iran yourself, but I'm afraid this kind of cynical political realism is still thriving in our century. I'll pass on Iraq - just have a look at Somalia instead: when the ICU took control in 2006, peace briefly settled in the country, until the Western-backed Ethiopian intervention drove it into chaos again. Granted, the ICU were a bunch of Islamists who practised Sharia law and summary executions and I'm not condoning them, but at least there were moderates among them. The al-Shabaab who replace them today are far more radical and bloodthirsty, but we in the West see this as a good trade, just because the renewed civil war keeps them busy, and we're too afraid of a stable Somalia that might harbor international terrorist networks. I'm far from certain that most Somalis would agree with this, but who really cares about what Somali people think?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on May 25, 2011 at 8:54am

I have to go take my final right now and I will respond later but bottom line is: we are in the year 2011, not 1953. And there are no moderates in Islam; esp. among political groups. The only real democracy is secular democracy. Look what happened when Jimmy Carter the coward neglected the Shah in 1979: the Islamic Republic of Terror.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on May 25, 2011 at 9:22am

How is the nature of 'real democracy' relevant to this part of the discussion? I'm afraid you missed the point again - which was, the main reason the Western world send troops to the Middle West or elsewhere is not to give 'people the opportunity to live in freedom and decide on their own future', as you put it earlier. It's a desirable outcome even to our deciders, yes, but it's at best a peripheral concern. The main reason we go there is to promote (or sometimes demote, as is the case in Somalia) stability where it suits us, for geopolitical reasons that all eventuality boil down to domestic interests (or, sometimes, to corporate interests.)

And it's as true in 2011 as it was in 2006 or in 1953. Like it or not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Minion on May 25, 2011 at 6:04pm

Jaume

Sassan has to disregard history because he has no point if you take history into account. Now Jimmy Carter is a coward (name calling is specialty) because he didn't back the Shah (the great humanitarian he was).

History will tell us that Regan's people were negotiating with the Islamic Republic to not release the hostages until after the election, but then it is history and it doesn't count.

The problem with the article it doesn't take into account the fact the west's role in the conflicts or I should say the writer wants to pretend they have no bearing on what we are dealing with today.

We (the west) are in these countries because they have natural resources we want. If the resources were not there we would not care what goes on or we would chose a side and give them the military aid to kill their own people, there are plenty of cases of that happening.

When you put the IMF into the mix the story gets more interesting. The IMF is the west's way of having control over these governments using interest on the debt as the weapon.

So is this the west's version of just believing and all of your sins go away?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on May 25, 2011 at 9:05pm

We (the west) are in these countries because they have natural resources we want.

 

It's a bit more complex than that - for instance, it would take more than Iraqi oil to pay for the Iraq war, and it would have been far more efficient to buy oil directly from Saddam if our primary concern was the availability of natural resources. Logistics, stable financial markets and free-flowing international trade are more important than direct control of natural resources in the big picture - and they're all affected when rogue dictators, insurgents or terrorists get in the way. Which in turn affects economic growth at home, which affects gross national happiness - which is what really matters in the end.

 

The IMF is the west's way of having control over these governments using interest on the debt as the weapon.

 

Hmph. There's no real interest for the IMF (or those who fund it) to pressure governments that way, although it sure gives them some leeway in these governments' economic policies. There were mismanagements in the past the IMF has to answer for, but the primary goal of the IMF has always been the same - stable financial markets - and turning a profit out of predation on indebted countries is certainly not the best way to achieve it in the long run. Quite the opposite - and the IMF policymakers are well aware of this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Ward on May 25, 2011 at 2:19am

I agree with some of what is said in the column but the reality is that since America is among the most prosperous nations, people of other nations and even those within the U.S. can often times have a root for the underdog reaction. I am by no means suggesting that the U.S. government has never done anything wrong, but being the most prosperous means there will be political pressure to be involved in situations which really have no bearing on the the U.S. and I do think other nations take some advantage of this. I think when things go wrong, those responsible should accept the blame but this is not likely to happen. If the U.S. avoids involvement in a situation in which it could be of benefit, there will be blame for non-involvement. If it does get involved, politics quickly invades what could have been a positive situation turning it sour and it is blamed still. There is no easy solution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 25, 2011 at 6:46am

We can stop blaming ourselves when we actually stop fucking around over there.  How many countries outside the west have had a century of continuous government?  Of those that haven't, how many of those have been overthrown or destabilized by the west?  Those who want to say, "well that was then this is now" are fucking morons, because we haven't stopped.  Leaving the rest of the world to find their own way will mean letting them kill each other until they get sick of doing so.  You can't 'spread freedom', and anyone who says so is brainwashed by oxymoronic rhetoric.

 

France, Britain, Spain, and Germany spent centuries killing each other as they developed their skills in diplomacy.  Had alien beings landed and just toppled the monarchs, putting in place an alien template for government, while also exporting local resources, how do you think things would have turned out?  As soon as those aliens left, war would have resumed, and it would have been fought until everybody grew up.

 

Over the next 50 years petroleum resources will deplete as alternative energy rises and the west will lose interest in toppling foreign governments.  When that happens, those countries who had previously sat on top of huge oil reserves will then have a cultural hatred for the west that will last for centuries.  That violence is already ingrained, and it will remain no matter what we do.  In all honestly, all we can really do is either walk away and accept the aftermath or go in hard and level those countries until only cockroaches remain.  There is no middle ground - any government set up by outsiders will only be viewed with more contempt than the west because they will be viewed as traitors and/or puppets.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page