Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa  Perhaps not said in so many words, yet clearly indicated through its actions. Non-compliance with international resolutions, refusal to accept the ICC, amnesty for all american soldiers in foreign lands, and a general attitude of demnading adherence to UN resolutions while being in complete violation themselves. These are all actions that indicate how the US find itself accountable to NOBODY, while insisting that everybody else should be held accountable ( except of course their allies ).
COmbine that with the unilateral action in Iraq, and you have a nation that considers itself superior all others and accountabloe to none. |
But, why single out the US when:
1) Other nations have been found in non-compliance with international resolutions?
2) Other nations have not agreed to the treaty laid out by the ICC?
3) Other nations have agreed to sign BILATERAL immunity agreements?
And,
4) Other nations have a general attitude of demanding adherence to UN resolutions while being in complete violation themselves?
...unless, as being evident, you have a problem with the US in particular...even though the US is doing exactly what other nations are doing themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa i'm pretty sure that being a "super power" is more than just a mere CONCEPT for the US. There is NO DOUBT that there exists only ONE global superpower on the planet right now and that is the US. The US has made good use of this status since the end of the cold war by being able to take actions without anybody having the might to oppose them. And those that do, tend to get isolated.
No doubt characters like the fundo mullahs use the US as a scapegoat for their obvious administrative incompetence. However APART from that there are PLENTY of things for which the US is culpable. Of course the ME quagmire is american. You can blame it all you want on the "insurgents" etc, but the fact is that the conflict was started by the US with no honest rationale, and all the things that the US was warned against have come true.
Yet lets take a look at some other things. Agrarian nations suffer under US trade policies because they do not want their own farmers threatened by the cheaper agricultural products of Asia. Cotton products, for instance, have strictly controlled quotas beyond which no products can be exported to the US. SUre ur taking care of your own farmers, but your nation is obviously in contradiction of its open capitalist market philosophy. The US is pressuring Korea to accept US beef imports, even though popular korean sentiment is dead against it. Local beef producers will suffer. But of course in this situation the US firmly believes in "open markets".
American pressure often works in the benefit of the american economy to the DETRIMENT of local economies.
Lets take a look at the alleged "spread of democracy". Lets not forget that the US has a history of funding unscrupulous dictators when it serves their purpose. Also it has a history of funding and training terrorists. BUt most of all it is allegiance to the US ( NOT YOUR DEMOCRACY) that determines whether you are OK or whether you are part of the "axis of evil".
The US will happily fund and support a tyrannical and unpopular dictator. Noriega, Saddam, Zia-ul-Haq come to mind immediately.
The US will happily support or even re-install anti-democratic and despotic rulers as long as they keep the oil flowing. Saudi King Abdullah and the King of Kuwait come to mind.
The US will happily train volunteers in guerilla warfare and inhuman combat tactics when it serves their purpose, and leave them behind once they are done. OBL and the Mujahedin
THe US will happily condone torture, if it serves their purpose. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo
Sure, you are right that indigenous communities should take responsibility for themselves. But tell me, what was pakistan to do when their military dictator was being funded by the US? What were the nicaraguans to do when their leader was a CIA asset? What were the shiites to do when their despotic leader was allowed to remain in charge in spite of US promises to the contrary ( any count on how many people were exterminated as a result?). What are the democratic forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to do when their leaders are actively supported even though they stand for discriminatory sexist fundamentalist policies?
No doubt the indigenous populations have their share of responsibility... but the US is certainly not innocent of making it near impossible. |
The truth is, EVERY nation in the world generally acts in ways to protect its own self-interests...which means, at times, supporting dictatorships, protecting their own economies and businesses, and even turning a blind eye to examples of human rights violations.
So why, again, single out the US when other nations are acting, themselves, in ways that protect their own self interests?
Could it be that you personally expect the US to act in a more idealistic way than all other nations...even though the US does EXACTLY what other nations do to various extremes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa Hamas has been unable to contribute ANYTHING since nobody wishes to accept the results of the free and fair elections of palestine. IF your leaders can hob-nob with an unsavoury character like Saddam or Noriega or Zia ( who each stood for their particular brand of repression and violence) then why the sudden scruples when it comes to a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PARTY?
The simple fact is that the Palestinian people have chosen Hamas to represent them. WHo the hell are we to decide who they can or can not vote for? The DUTY of the rest of the world is to talk to Hamas. Om the negotiating table it is expedient that the demand for Israel's destruction is retracted. But that can ONLY take place when they talk. TO demand concessions prior to talks is unjust. I can assure you that Hamas is practical enough to realize tat it cannot expect a solution that involves the elimination of Israel. But that demand can only be discussed at the negotiating table.
In ANY CASE< as a SOVEREIGN NATION with a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEGISLATURE, it is perfectly within Hamas' rights to arm their populations. Granted it is not the best move, but again if we are to hold up the pretence of "democracy" then we must also respect the sovereignty and executive control over palestinian territories granted by the free and fair election. Nobody bloody well asks the Israelis to disarm even though they kill AT LEAST 10 palestinians for every israeli. If we are talking numbers, then the Israelis are 10 times as violent and deadly as the palestinians, yet all demands of disarmament are made to Hamas. Israel continues its constant breach of UN resolutions, yet the onus is placed on the shattered nation of palestine. |
Well, if Hamas truly felt that the state of Israel has the right to exist, why wouldn't they just come out and say that Israel has a right to exist?
Surely, this would help bring Israel and her allies to the negotiation table with Hamas as being a more acceptable player (to them) in promoting peace in the region and a much more realized potential for a truely peaceful-and acceptable to both parties-two-state solution.
Evidently, if Hamas is unwilling to simply and publicly realize the very evident fact that Israel isn't just going to go away be making such a statement, what hope of peace between the Israel and the Palestinians is there-by way of Hamas-within such an environment that Hamas perpetuates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa Well whatver Saddam was, he succeeded in implementing a secular policy that involved all segments of society including women. Under him, the tensionsbetween the ethnic and religious groups were not so big. The US was warned prior to entering Iraq that removing saddam would cause the situation to explode.
Also prior to the US invasion , Iraq was free of Al Qaeda. The fact that it is now present in Iraq entirely thanks to the US. The alleged "links" between AQ and saddam are completely fictitious, but their obvious presence there NOW is NOT.
SInce the IRaq war was unilateral ( initiated under the guise of broken UN resolutions - what a joke- and WMDs - another joke) the resultant mess is ENTIRELY the US' fault. |
The implied notion that Saddam's government was "all-inclusive" and peace-provoking along ethnic, cultural, or religious lines is complete nonsense considering the actual environment on the ground that Shiites and Kurds (and other groups) lived within while Iraq was being run by Saddam.
And, in addition, the notion that the Iraq War was a "unilateral" action by the US is also complete nonsense since other nations besides the US actively supported this war and also, to various degrees of participation, played active military roles in this war...and still do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa Look if Canada came in and decided that it owned Alaska, mexico came in and decided it owned california, do you think the US would just "get over it"? Absolutely not. You would fight the fight for generations under the belief that Alaska and California are US territory. Just because Israel has existed your whole life, does not mean that the Palestinians should be expected to be A-okay about it.
This is further made impossible when Israel continues its illegal settlements as well as the inhuman blockade of Gaza. Whether you like it or not, the Israelis are the interlopers/ insurgents and they will be viewed as such. Today's world requires a two state solution. But the focus is all wrong. The focus is being put on selling it to the Israelis. The Israelis should be ahppy that the option is even on the table, and they should be happy and grateful for whatever they get. It is the Palestinian population that has been made into hungry refugees that fight for their daily survival. If it isn't an Israeli incursion that will kill them, it may just be starvation as a result of the clockade. It is a complete desecration of justice when demands are placed on the poorest, most desperate, most threatened nation that was arbitrarily evicted by the decision of external powers.
The Palestinians are the wronged party who live dangerous and depleted lives. Yet you also demand that they remove any last vestiges of national sovereignty so you can bestow your benevolence upon them. Honestly dude, how realistic is that. How would YOU react under the same circumstances.
First of all they are POTENTIAL attacks that may perhaps kill MANY LESS than the US kills. The 3000 dead of 9/11 have translated into 500,000 dead Iraqis. OF COURSE its one sided when the violence perpetrated is so one sided. I consider 500,000 dead in a war based on a US LIE to be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than US paranoia at losing fewer people than are killed by your indigenous weapons industry. Americans kill more than 11,000 american each year with your guns. But i can assure you that no tyrant ever killed half a million people in Iraq. You are a greater danger to yourselves.
As i have said many times i agree that the local populations must take responsibility for themselves. But unfortunately that is not possible as long as the US continues to support dictators, guerilla groups and support violent regimes responsible for MANY MORE DEATHS than their enemies.
Well perhaps it would be possible if the US decided to butt out. But apparently global justice is what the US decides, and thus every decision msut be rubber stamped by the US for it to work. The UN decided that Israel was building illegal settlements and encroaching upon palestinian land. BUt of course the US will never demand ANYTHING of israel. RIce went the furthest by "discussing" the matter with Olmert. Whoop dee doo.
Global justice is a farce as long as the ultimate authority is US approval. |
History often plays a role in helping guide decision-makers, in the present sense, by explaining how events took place in the past.
But, on the other hand, history can often be used as a crutch for decision-makers, in the present sense, if they focus all of their attention on history.
(Heck, its extremely hard to find ANY ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious group that DOESN'T have a beef with some other ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious group.)
Of course, Israel and her allies are guilty of past and present actions that may have harmed Palestinians in some way.
But, the Palestinians and her allies are also guilty of past and present actions that may have harmed Israelis in some way.
So, rather than harp on history or events that will soon be history, how do you think the Israelis and Palestinians should settle their differences...keeping in mind the doubt that Israel will simply go away?
(Personally speaking, I think you are an idealist...which is ok. I, on the other hand, tend to be a realist...which might explain some of the differences in our positions.
)
*[I'd add that your "Canada/Mexico taking over parts of the US analogy" isn't an accurate anology regarding the current Israel - Palestinian conflict since that area was a part of the Ottoman Empire and later a British Mandate before the current conflict began in the 1940's. And, throughout history before that, that area had been under the control of various peoples...and not just Arabs or Jews who happened to live there. It's a mess, I will admit.]