Viewing Thread:
"I hate the West"

You read it - I hate the Western world. Originally this topic was to be called "I hate America", but the fact of the matter is that I hate every country of the so-called "developed" nations. Allow me to give an example:

For eighteen years the Taliban controlled Afganistan. Within the country people were killed for their beliefs, music and culture were banned, great monuments such as the giant Bhudda was destroyed (perhaps one of the greatest of all of Man's monuments has been destroyed forever), and the Taliban raped the land of every resource.

What did the West do?

Nothing.

Until, of course, some terrorist group who happen to be based in Afganistan attacked America. (And I really do mean "happened to be based in Afganistan". It turns out that the Taliban didn't like Al Qu'aida very much, and may have helped America get rid of them.) So, in a space of THREE months, America and the West ended EIGHTEEN years of opression. Just like that.

The same things are happening in Zimbabwae, Pakistan, Iraq, North Korea etc...

Of course, we really don't care about the Ethnic clensing in Zimbabwae. And it is ethnic clensing - people are being put on the streets and being killed for being White. We only care about the oil supply from Iraq, and the potential threat from N. Korea. Who cares about the people in the other countries.

So much for trying to help the world.

unknown kernel wrote:
> I'm not saying that getting rid of Saddam is going
> to be clean or free of sacrifice; what I am saying is that *we* don't
> have the right to decide who makes that sacrifice.

We do when the person in question threatens the peace and security of a region and possibly the world. In many ways *we* put Saddam where he is about 20 years ago. *We* can remove him if we deem it necessary, and the UN resolution proves that. All we have to do now is wait.

A military campaign in Iraq will be brutal - Iraq moved C+C into urban areas about September this year and repositioned units into urban garrisons - but the civilian casualties will be nothing, in terms of numbers, to the 100's of thousands Saddam has killed himself, he has the blood of 100 000 Kurds on his hands anyway. Well not the blood, he gassed them, so it's more like the vomit...

~~Belldandy~~

Belldandy wrote:

> Yes, very nice idea that. And we all know what happens to those who
> Saddam even suspects of plotting anything against him don't we ?

Yes, but we also know what happens to those same people when we drop bombs on them. If people want to plot against Saddam then good, I hope they succeed. I'm not saying that getting rid of Saddam is going to be clean or free of sacrifice; what I am saying is that *we* don't have the right to decide who makes that sacrifice.

½pint wrote:
> We know America is only taking an interest in Iraq because of its oil.
> I mean, assassination would be so much more logical, or at least an
> American military occupation. But no, America wants to invade, to
> steal all the oil and get lots of funds from E$$O. Nice one, America.
> You certainly do have the 'people' at heart.

Read my reply for the obvious reason why oil matters. America has no more interest than Russia, France and Germany, who all deal with, and sell and make money from Iraq's current regime. Strange how no one mentions that, yet it's always America and oil...

~~Belldandy~~

unknown kernel wrote:
> I agree with almost all of your post, but I think regime change in
> these countries is a decision to be made by the people it will
> actually affect.

Yes, very nice idea that. And we all know what happens to those who Saddam even suspects of plotting anything against him don't we ?

Well we don't actually...they all seem to disappear without trace and are never seen again. And their families.

~~Belldandy~~

We know America is only taking an interest in Iraq because of its oil. I mean, assassination would be so much more logical, or at least an American military occupation. But no, America wants to invade, to steal all the oil and get lots of funds from E$$O. Nice one, America. You certainly do have the 'people' at heart.

===SONICRAV---> wrote:

> And unknown kernal, what is wrong with thousands of innocent victims
> dying to free the lives of others?

If people are making the sacrifice through their own free will, then nothing. But the people of Afghanistan had the choice made *for* them. Nobody said, "Now look, you Afghans, we're going to have a war, would you mind if a few thousand of you died so that we can win?" We just bombed; and we'll do the same in Iraq.

My opinion is that change in a country should come from within, not as a result of the West sending out its bombers. I just don't think we have the right to choose how other people live their lives. Once we assume that right then you get into the situation where not just the 'bad guys' are removed, but anyone we disagree with, whether democratically elected or not. And then all the problems of short-termism and self-interest that you mention come crashing down on the heads of those we tried to 'liberate': as happened with Pinochet in Chile (keep out the socialists), and the Taliban in Afghanistan (keeep out the Russians).

Letting people make their own liberation isn't the same as letting them rot. It means not actively supporting oppressive regimes, not sending them arms and not sending them money. If we do this then I genuinely believe that change will come; as it did in South Africa when the Apartheid regime became more and more isolated. Iraqis have never had the chance to make their own revolution - either we have been buttressing Saddam with arms and aid, or sanctions have weakened the people and made them dependent on the government.

I agree with almost all of your post, but I think regime change in these countries is a decision to be made by the people it will actually affect.

===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> For eighteen years the Taliban controlled Afganistan. Within the
> country people were killed for their beliefs, music and culture were
> banned, great monuments such as the giant Bhudda was destroyed
> (perhaps one of the greatest of all of Man's monuments has been
> destroyed forever), and the Taliban raped the land of every
> resource.
>
> What did the West do?

In the early 80's Russia fought a war against the mujahadeen and others in Afghanistan and the USA, UK and other NATO allies provided training and technical support to elements in Afghanistan in exchange for captured Soviet weaponry, and to further degrade the strength of the Russian military.

That aside, there is a reason why the West did nothing, and it does not lie with the governments of the developed countries but with the people of those countries, mainly those from the far left.

Ever since the end of World War 2, with the exceptions of regional conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea, the Falklands, the people of the developed nations have experienced war mainly as a TV highlight and films which show the horrors of war. Between the developed nations diplomacy, not warfare, has become the way of making a better future. Those who see this, some, not all, expect other nations to conform to this. They expect nations like Afghanistan, Iraq e.t.c. to play by the same book.

So now, when the developed nations actwithout first being hit themselves it's labelled "Western Agression", and the media criticism begins. Look at coverage of the Balkans in 1999. The BBC ignored the risks NATO took, and set about finding all the collateral damage examples it could.

This has led to today's situation, where developed nations have, until now, been politically restrained from acting to defend others, unless those same nations are hit themselves (which provides the political will for action). At three points in history an American President has been provided with a military plan to oust the Taliban and Al Queda, and at all times it was filed away, because the political will and the will of the people's "popular" opinion would not permit it.

The UN stood by, and talked, issued sanctions, whilst the Taliban wrecked Afghanistan. Without force, words are words.


> Of course, we really don't care about the Ethnic clensing in
> Zimbabwae. And it is ethnic clensing - people are being put on the
> streets and being killed for being White. We only care about the oil
> supply from Iraq, and the potential threat from N. Korea. Who cares
> about the people in the other countries.

I have no doubt that the MOD has presented several plans to Tony Blair for getting rid of Mugabe and his regime. But we can't do it - he has African Leaders support - many of the same leaders which decried Apartheid are now supporting Mugabe, hyporcritical or what ? - and if anyone were to intervene then the far left would again call it Western Imperialism and start quoting the list of governments disposed of by the CIA, MI5, 6, and so on. Developed nations are not allowed to intervene until the body count reaches quite a high level - say about couple of hundred thousand like in the Balkans, and then the far left says we've stood by and watched a massacre. Of course we care about oil in Iraq - if Saddam didn't have oil then Iraq would be another Somalia, but he has oil. Where does the money for his weapons come from, and for his WMDS and palaces e.t.c. ? Oil. That is why he is so much more a threat than other nations like Iraq. Yet many against a campaign in Iraq seem to think there idea it's about oil is some kind of secret agenda by the West, it isn't, it's always been about the oil because thats the source of the problem.

> So much for trying to help the world.

On the contrary, developed nations governments want to help much of the world. They're just constrained to using diplomacy in areas it will not work, and it is many of the people of the developed nations, safe, free, and comfortable, that do not want to help the rest of the world. They'd rathr argue about the past, criticise those that have taken action, and mess about with protests e.t.c.

That isn't helping. With no constraints this planet could be made a better place. But instead it is those who claim to have the best interests of the developing nations at heart that prevent progress.

There are those in troubled parts of the world who have no stake peace or freedom, and they will not give up their power to diplomats. If the developed nations do not shoulder the responsibility to bring peace and freedom, and democracy, to troubled places, who will ? But we cannot, instead we talk, and send aid, and discuss, and argue. And nothing changes, until now.

A critical point is coming, if Iraq does not comply to the UN resolution, and if the council then does not take action, the UN will be finished, and America will act with her allies to end Saddam's regime. This could trigger similar actions all over the world to remove those who have caused so much suffering to their own people.

There are still nations with the will to act, all that remains is for them to ignore the protestations of self intereted nations like France and Germany - who whilst saying there should be no war in Iraq, have been selling manufacturing and military equipment to Iraq.

~~Belldandy~~

Yes, ethnic clensing was too strong a term... but it got the point across. In any case, what is happening in Zimbabwae now is not dissimilar to the opression of the Jews in pre-war Germany. First their rights are striped, they are put out of their homes...

And unknown kernal, what is wrong with thousands of innocent victims dying to free the lives of others? Now, I agree that in most of the places where the West has "helped", regimes have come into power and made things the same as they were. The only reason for this is that when, for example, America got rid of the Taliban, they did so for a short term reason to prevent any more attacks on America. (Maybe revenge?). There was no real long term thinking into how to create political stability, and as a result many of the mountainous areas are still ruled by warlords who helped the Taliban.

My point is two headed:

Firstly, why should the West do absolutley nothing about dictators that cause the death of millions UNTIL they do something to us?

Secondly, whenever something is done, there is always a short term look at the issue. Has anyone decided what to do when Saddam is, potentially, removed from power? Many Saudis in the capital (which in NOT some squalid goolag) actually like him. Even though this is mainly due to his propaganda, how will America stop Saddam's son (who is even more manic than him) come into power? Has anyone really thought this through at all?

Sonic

===SONICRAV---> wrote:

> Until, of course, some terrorist group who happen to be based in
> Afganistan attacked America. (And I really do mean "happened to
> be based in Afganistan". It turns out that the Taliban didn't
> like Al Qu'aida very much, and may have helped America get rid of
> them.) So, in a space of THREE months, America and the West ended
> EIGHTEEN years of opression. Just like that.

I agree that the West only acts in its own self interest; but we're kidding ourselves if we think that we can solve the world's problems by pointing our guns at the right people. In getting rid of the Taliban we killed several thousand innocent civilians - people who had no say in who ran the country, and who had nothing to do with terrorism. And the group who now hold power (I'll believe elections when I see 'em) have been responsible for so much repression themselves that many Afghans initially welcomed the Taliban as rulers. When Afghanistan was fighting Russia the US fell into the trap of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' and pumped arms and money to Islamic militants. And now that the US is fighting those militants, it has jumped into bed with the raping and pillaging Northern Alliance, and a Pakistani dictator whose own election (not condemned by the West, given lots of money) was as free and fair as that of Saddam Hussein (condemned by the West, threatened with war). Are they making the same mistake again?

> Of course, we really don't care about the Ethnic clensing in
> Zimbabwae. And it is ethnic clensing - people are being put on the
> streets and being killed for being White.

White people are certainly being threatened, even imprisoned, in Zimbabwe but I don't think they're actually being killed as a matter of policy; if they ARE being killed then they are isolated murders (before Belldandy jumps on me for this: I don't approve of murder, terrorism etc), which is very different from ethnic cleansing. Either way, the number of white people killed in Zimbabwe pales into insignificance beside the number of black people killed in Zimbabwe because of politics and hunger, about whom he hear very little.

I think Mugabe and Bin Laden are quite similar in that they both twist genuine grievances to their own end: Iraq, Palestine and Saudi Arabia in the case of Bin Laden; land reform in the case of Mugabe. And it's the threat to white interests (ie, owning all the land) that has got the Tories et al so worked up. Zimbabweans - white and black - deserve their own land; and it's very convenient for the Tories to say, "No, sorry, you can't have any land because Mugabe now supports it, and he's evil and therefore reform is too".

If your saying you hate hyporicsy, than, well, your a little late, though its hardly a western thing.

At the risk of being obtuse, if you hate it, do something about it.

If your just going to sit on your bum and complain, then your going to have to take what your given?