Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Feb 12, 2011.
Mohammad Atta and Ayman Zawahiri
Realpolitik, global pragmatism, and the furthering of national interests while heading off those of others.
Money. Stability. Oil. Repeat year, after year, after year.
For the State Blowback is a Feature, Not a Bug
Or we could play, "Name that Arab Despotism!"
For all of his flaws, Mubarak was a pragmatist who opposed extremism and has maintained a peace treaty with Israel for the last 30 years.
So do you want democracy or do you not want democracy? I only ask because if the answer is "no", we have wasted an awful lot of blood and treasure to put forth the "Bush Doctrine".
From Christian Science Monitor: Why Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Isn't The Islamic Bogeyman
The Struggle for Self-Determination in the Arab World
Imagine how different things would be if the USA was not dependent upon Middle Eastern oil.
If we were energy-independent, it would be of little or no concern to us what happened over there. But instead, we drive around in our gas-hog SUV's and get indignant about the fact that "those people" had the audacity to build their countries on top of "our" oil.
Reminds me of 150 years ago where we held a similar attitude of "how dare those people live on the land where we want to put our railroad!"
On a different note, good to see the NY Times giving Gene Sharpe some credit relating specifically as to what is going on right now in Egypt. Especially in that first week when the protests were student led, it explains a lot of why it was so non-violent. But then this also creates a conundrum that runs headlong into "they hate us for our freedoms" myth.
One of the things I find incredibly ironic is the double standard we are applying towards human rights in other nations.
Back in the 1980's it was a popular liberal cause to boycott goods from South Africa because of that nations policy of aparthied. Blacks in that country were second-class citizens with no civil rights, and the world was (justifiably) outraged.
Fast-forward to 2011. Today there is a nation that arbitrarily denies civil rights to half of its population. These people are denied the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to drive a car. They cannot allow their faces to be seen in public, and they are considered to be the "property" of their owners. They can be beaten, stoned, or even put to death for actions which are not even crimes anywhere else.
That nation is Saudi Arabia, and those people are women.
I wonder why it is that during the 1980's there was no shortage of well-meaning people who spoke out in protest over the racial aparthied policies of South Africa, yet those same people are silent today when it comes to the gender aparthied policies of Saudi Arabia.
My best guess is that its pretty easy to "boycott" a nation that doesnt have anything you really need anyway. Its a little more complicated to "boycott" a nation that produces a third of the oil that we import. Apparently, our need to drive gas hogs outweighs our sense of outrage over the fact that half of the human beings in Saudi Arabia have the legal status of cattle.
Now you can't bring up Saudi Arabia without bringing up th 9/11 terrorists. If ever a country deserved to be invaded for terrorism I would have thought that would do it. Talk about double standards.
To be fair, Bin Laden was a wanted criminal in Saudi Arabia and Al-Queda has committed terrorist act there also. He has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the monarchy. It would be factually incorrect to state that the current leadership of Saudi Arabia was involved in 9-11.
At some point we as a nation are going to have to ask ourselves why these people are committing acts of terrorism against us. The problem with a purely military response is that we are making enemies faster than we can kill them. And until we can wean ourselves off of our addiction to their oil, they will continue to have us by the short hairs.
No more factually incorrect than to say Sadam Hussein was involved. I'm not saying any war was necessary, prudent, or wise (in fact I have never considered anything close to it). Simply that there was a double standard involved in selecting despots to topple.
Separate names with a comma.