I have come across a rather refreshing take on the U.S. and Britain foreign policy. Th author points out that countries like Pakistan and others in the middle east like to do a lot of blaming and not enough taking responsibility for their own ills.

Honestly I think he nails it on the head here. When are we going to stop letting them lay it all on the west?


Views: 233

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Stop living in the past and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

Just tell the Palestinians (as Israel continues to occupy and build more and more on their land) that history is irrelevant?

The Palestinians must get rid of Hamas as part of any coalition government. Would you want to negotiate with an organization whose preambles of their constitution states that their objective is to destroy and annihilate your country and people? This is exacerbated even further as Hamas is funded and supported by a terrorist regime: the Islamic Republic of Terror. The Palestinians had plenty of chances for negotiation and Arafat failed them. Let's hope that Mahmoud Abbas will have the balls to stand up and not stand in a coalition government with a terrorist organization.

The ratio of Palestinians vs Israelis killed makes Israel look like the Goliath.

Israeli occupation is physical (and growing) proof every day that Palestinians have no right to their land. Occupation is not just "we're keeping you out because you're a threat to us", it's "we're building permanent houses here because YOU PALESTINIANS have no right to exist here".

And then the religious right in America supports the Goliath, because it's in the bible. I'm willing to concede that Islam at this stage is the most evil in their extremes, but American Christians are far from blameless in this occupation.



Remember, groups like Hamas don't care about land. It is about religion as well. The reason why Iran "supports" the Palestinians so much is that according to the Hadith they must first conquer Jerusalem and then move on to the west so that the "hidden imam" will return. As long as the issue is not land but religion, there will never be peace in the region. At least with Israel, they don't have rabbis running the government. 

You should read the book "Son of Hamas" by Mosab Hassan Yousef. I have it on ebook, if you like, I can email it to you.

So once again you bring no evidence, assert opinion as fact, and reduce to ad hominems that reveal the absence of foundation for your claims.  This is a standard pattern, either this or repetitively typing out the exact same syntax over and over, even applying bold text, in the hope you will imprint another brain.  Human beings exchange ideas and I hope you will develop that skill some day.

I agree wholeheartedly! I am not saying that the West has a squeaky clean CV, this is clearly not the case, as the West has made tons of ill conceived, badly motivated decisions in the somewhat recent past. The question for me is this: At what point do we draw the line and say from here onwards we can refer to this point in time and not to an earlier one. Is it the crusades? Or perhaps earlier, say the Greek rebellion against Xerxes in 480BC? Or maybe the carving up of Palestine during the last throws of imperial competition?


No, this commentator has noticed something quite insidious creeping into our Western way of reasoning and penetrates most detrimentally into our schools and news media, its all pervasive, a kind of uncritical political correctness mixed with cultural relativism with clear slants toward West-bashing. Something like 'Westaphopia', practised by Westerners and others alike. While it is encouraging to see some people criticising the main stream media on issues like this, it does not have anything close to a critical mass to change the tide of opinion, to the extent that it even drives some moderate folks into the clawed, winged grasp of political parties like the BNP. We all know that the leaders of this party are dreadful racists and opportunist mongrels, but it doesn't help that they are the only voice in mainstream politics voicing this argument...or something like it, minus the bigotry and hatred.


I sat it a cab on the way to Kings Cross station and had to hear yet another muslim cab driver rail over the UK foreign policy (together with Isreal & of cause the US), assuming like most of his other passengers he was going to get automatic agreement, but was visibly surprised to find someone with a genuine opinion as opposed to a rubber template. When I asked him why no other Arab countries had volunteered to send their forces to Libya to aid his fellow muslim brothers and sisters, he had no answer, so I reminded him that they probably couldn't help as their forced were to busy beating their one rebellions to worry about Gadaffi.


In a way watching the news is similar to watching a run of the mill Theist vs. Atheist debate, where the atheist is happy to concede issues in favour of the theist on grounds of intellectual honesty and fairness, while the theist consistently brings up old arguments that have been refuted centuries ago...or never dealing with the (elephant in the room) errancy of their religious text. Its a game between the honest intellectual human, and the lying opportunistic snake. Truth remains truth whether it offends delicate minded people or not!

At what point do we draw the line and say from here onwards we can refer to this point in time and not to an earlier one.


When foreign occupation in the middle east ends.  Perhaps when one decade goes by without a middle eastern government being toppled or destabilized by the west.  How does that sound?

I don't mean to preempt you trajectory here but, if you're implying that we live and let live and not intervene, or perhaps your preferred method of choice is negotiation...then I'd have to say that this is a naive view on how things work.


Firstly, we don't live on another planet, where we can sit back and simply observe, nor do we live in a world where we can assume a base line for human decency, we inhabit a world where invariably might is right. This is simply as a matter evolutionary fact, we are mammals and will always have an excess of testosterone injected into our daily lives. Therefore assuming that negotiating with thugs will get you anywhere is simply naive.

As any intelligence operative will tell you, sometimes we have to play according to the opponents rules. We need to be the judge on where we draw the line and say 'that' we will not do, and perhaps that might involve leaving them be, but when you inhabit the same planet, and our interaction is driven by mammal urges and illogical memes we need to find the most effective path to a better outcome.


Secondly, 'occupation' does not automatically equate to rape and pillage...it has been known on rare occasions it has conferred some net benefits to its beneficiaries even if at the time they were not aware of it. I am not a big fan of emotive language, I prefer intelligent mature debate not childish stabs at the simple solutions.



As long as we remain the bull in the china shop we assume responsibility for broken dishes.  You want to cut out the history of all the governments propped up & toppled by the west so no blame can be leveled at the west but then continue to prop up & topple other governments and ask that the people in those countries accept responsibility for our actions?  Really?

No maybe you're right, maybe we should withdraw all interest, in say Pakistan, where the Taliban is trying its utmost to takes over the government, which it surely will, and when they point their nukes at your back door, we should just put out our hand and say sorry, we've been a naughty megalomaniacal dictator and your peaceful protestations are now being considered by our government as honourable, so please point your pistola and someone else...


Ha ha...you loose game over, oh, sorry, there's no restart button to this game...praise allah, and mohammed, blessed be his name. 'Wait let me cover my face, silly me...those suffragettes were really way off course weren't they?'...


What do you propose should be the middle Eastern foreign policy, aprt from live and let live? 

Either withdraw or grow up and accept responsibility, and that includes blame.  If your government had been toppled, dictators put in place, occasionally replaced by foreign occupiers - would you accept responsibility for all of that?  Why do you feel the people sitting on top of our oil should accept that responsibility?
If the U.S. were to leave these countries, stop engaging is clandestine operations aimed at controlling or toppling governments, do you think the relationship between the U.S. and those nations would improve? Would sending aid be acceptable in times of war or crisis? I personally am a bit skeptical that such a plan would be effective, but suggesting diplomacy seems to be a catch phrase response, what does America do when diplomacy fails? Sanctions usually seem to make the country worse and has little effect on the regime in which it is targetted.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service