Impotent US Fails To Act To Prevent Wholesale Slaughter
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Rlent,
I have had conversations with people from that part of Africa many many times and one thing that I got from some of the political conversations is that their form of freedom is remarkably not like ours or the "west's".
They also seem to understand that many of their governments are nothing more than a long line of governments where they tolerate them and don't last long.
I know that sounds scatters but see here is the thing, if we are to be involved in the middle east, we have to accept their ways first, not impose our ideas of "democracy" and "freedom" on them because it will fail. With this we can't force changes without getting into a war, because for the most part that is the only thing that can happen when we are directly involved and demanding changes based on our ideals. We have to do this subtly and I think Egypt and Iran are two countries where we did. I don't think Egypt has happened because of the internet or facebook, those are tools, but they see what has happened in other parts of the world and what they can have.
But I digress ...
When we speak of "democracy" and "freedom", we look at it from our perspective and can not even consider what others want or need or more importantly what fits into their lives. Iraq is a perfect example of this. When they were forming their constitution, a lot of goofs and ignorants here screamed about the inclusion of religion in their constitution. Those who did the loudest screaming were the same ones who claim to be for freedom of religion but only certain types of religions and these are the same groups who are screaming about the 7 million Muslims who are taking over the country now. We then failed to get it and still do.
Their inclusion of religion is important, like Sharia Law is one of several parts of their religion that has to be there without exceptions to those who live as a Muslim.
So now we are seeing people stand up for themselves, a great thing but my concern is if we are going to support them as a country, then we support them. In the past we refused to, it didn't matter who the administration was, from Harding to present, it has been our failing to stay involved - Iraq is the exception. BUT the exception also is the norm because we failed in Iraq not rebuilding the country or bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to them but by allowing the dividing of our country. The influence that I see from my conversations with people, especially from Iran has been clear, Iraq set in motion the idea that people can be free if given a chance to set their own course.
SO I have to ask what can our international community do to help those?
I strongly feel the UN needs to stay out of it, and so do we to a point. We need to help those we can help IF they want our help but otherwise stay on the sideline and wait it out.
I have had conversations with people from that part of Africa many many times and one thing that I got from some of the political conversations is that their form of freedom is remarkably not like ours or the "west's".
They also seem to understand that many of their governments are nothing more than a long line of governments where they tolerate them and don't last long.
I know that sounds scatters but see here is the thing, if we are to be involved in the middle east, we have to accept their ways first, not impose our ideas of "democracy" and "freedom" on them because it will fail. With this we can't force changes without getting into a war, because for the most part that is the only thing that can happen when we are directly involved and demanding changes based on our ideals. We have to do this subtly and I think Egypt and Iran are two countries where we did. I don't think Egypt has happened because of the internet or facebook, those are tools, but they see what has happened in other parts of the world and what they can have.
But I digress ...
When we speak of "democracy" and "freedom", we look at it from our perspective and can not even consider what others want or need or more importantly what fits into their lives. Iraq is a perfect example of this. When they were forming their constitution, a lot of goofs and ignorants here screamed about the inclusion of religion in their constitution. Those who did the loudest screaming were the same ones who claim to be for freedom of religion but only certain types of religions and these are the same groups who are screaming about the 7 million Muslims who are taking over the country now. We then failed to get it and still do.
Their inclusion of religion is important, like Sharia Law is one of several parts of their religion that has to be there without exceptions to those who live as a Muslim.
So now we are seeing people stand up for themselves, a great thing but my concern is if we are going to support them as a country, then we support them. In the past we refused to, it didn't matter who the administration was, from Harding to present, it has been our failing to stay involved - Iraq is the exception. BUT the exception also is the norm because we failed in Iraq not rebuilding the country or bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to them but by allowing the dividing of our country. The influence that I see from my conversations with people, especially from Iran has been clear, Iraq set in motion the idea that people can be free if given a chance to set their own course.
SO I have to ask what can our international community do to help those?
I strongly feel the UN needs to stay out of it, and so do we to a point. We need to help those we can help IF they want our help but otherwise stay on the sideline and wait it out.
I think we should pull a "Ron Paul" action, pull out of the Middle East and let the chips fall where they may. NO relief of ANY kind. The last man standing wins. Then we deal with him. It is not the job of the U.S. to police these revolts no matter what happens. We can start by pulling everyone out of Kosevo. That is the easiest place to disengage. Then we could use those resources to help the drawn down in other places.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But Layout, look at what's actually going on, it is in some cases a great thing for us to be involved.
Many of these 'fights' are not toppling governments just demanding the removal of the leaders.
You know what would happen if say Libya would be toppled and the Soviets were around - so our involvement is important.
Replace the Soviets with China and you get the picture.
Many of these 'fights' are not toppling governments just demanding the removal of the leaders.
You know what would happen if say Libya would be toppled and the Soviets were around - so our involvement is important.
Replace the Soviets with China and you get the picture.
Yes Greg, I get the picture. When we stay involved we are meddling. When we don't we are "heartless"
I dealt with that "involvement" for 20 years. I remember the press BS during the 1981 shoot down off the coast of Libya. What I saw on the news was a far cry from what happened. The thing that struck me the most was the "hand wringers" going on about keeping international water ways open was none of our business. Some even said that is not what we were doing there.
No matter what we do, either way, we will be blasted by one side or the other.
The real problem is not that we are involved, it is that some, not all, don't like HOW we are involved. Change that around and the same kind of sniping will go on.
There is NO winning this one.
I dealt with that "involvement" for 20 years. I remember the press BS during the 1981 shoot down off the coast of Libya. What I saw on the news was a far cry from what happened. The thing that struck me the most was the "hand wringers" going on about keeping international water ways open was none of our business. Some even said that is not what we were doing there.
No matter what we do, either way, we will be blasted by one side or the other.
The real problem is not that we are involved, it is that some, not all, don't like HOW we are involved. Change that around and the same kind of sniping will go on.
There is NO winning this one.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Whodda thunk it ....
The irony of this, and what would make it a complete crackup (if it weren't so morally irresponsible) is this:
You (apparently) would, and (apparently) have, supported unwelcome wars of aggression (that's a legal term - one that if one is found guilty of, will get one in the dock), whereby we invaded countries - not at the behest of their citizenry - but simply because we deemed it "in our interest", in the name of "national security" ....
This, in the case of Iraq, was done based on lies and misrepresentations to both the American people and the world, and in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it has resulted in wholesale chaos and destruction, and nearly a million dead.
But now, apparently, on the otherhand, you conveniently would prefer to not act to prevent wholesale bloodshed and mass slaughter of innocent civilians - whose desire is but to throw off the chains of oppression, and to be free - even when such action might be as low risk, and simple as, enforcing a "no fly zone" over Libya, so that Mo can't use heavy weaponry to mow down unarmed civilian protesters.
You are, indeed, a real piece of work.
Suffice it to say, I consider such a position, as outlined by you above, to be one of extreme moral cowardice.
Whodda thunk it ....
The irony of this, and what would make it a complete crackup (if it weren't so morally irresponsible) is this:
You (apparently) would, and (apparently) have, supported unwelcome wars of aggression (that's a legal term - one that if one is found guilty of, will get one in the dock), whereby we invaded countries - not at the behest of their citizenry - but simply because we deemed it "in our interest", in the name of "national security" ....
This, in the case of Iraq, was done based on lies and misrepresentations to both the American people and the world, and in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it has resulted in wholesale chaos and destruction, and nearly a million dead.
But now, apparently, on the otherhand, you conveniently would prefer to not act to prevent wholesale bloodshed and mass slaughter of innocent civilians - whose desire is but to throw off the chains of oppression, and to be free - even when such action might be as low risk, and simple as, enforcing a "no fly zone" over Libya, so that Mo can't use heavy weaponry to mow down unarmed civilian protesters.
You are, indeed, a real piece of work.
Suffice it to say, I consider such a position, as outlined by you above, to be one of extreme moral cowardice.
You have NO IDEA in the world what I have supported or did not support. You have NO IDEA what I did or did not do. YOU have NO idea about anything.
Suffice it to say that you are clueless about my life.
Cowardice? How DARE YOU!!
You have no business speaking to me in this manner.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
If my conclusions are wrong, then it would be a simple matter for you to refute them:
Did you, or did you not, support the invasion of, and war in, Afghanistan ?
Did you, or did you not, support the invasion of, and war in, Iraq ?
Go ahead, speak up.
Well, it was pretty easy actually .....
I have every bit of business speaking to you - or anyone else that I choose to - in whatever manner I see fit.
In case you forgot:
It's my right - firstly as a human being, and certainly as an American citizen.
Last edited:
NO, I will no longer play your silly games.
You do NOT have the right to call me names in here or talk to me in the manner in which you do.
If you believe I did something that you don't like, PROVE IT.
Otherwise, stuff it.
You do NOT have the right to call me names in here or talk to me in the manner in which you do.
If you believe I did something that you don't like, PROVE IT.
Otherwise, stuff it.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
As I suspected ......
I didn't call you any names (well .... I did say that you were a real piece of work if you feel that qualifies) .... I simply gave my opinion of a position which you appeared to have espoused.
You don't like it, then argue the merits of the position.
Sorry, ain't gonna do it ....
Defend yourself and your positions - otherwise I'll accept this as an admission of defeat on this matter ....
Last edited: