American support for dictators (split thread)

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

Let us focus for a minute on Mubarek, as this is an excellent example. Egypt was not always a "friend" of the US. Egypt was a Soviet client state for a number of decades. The US gives $1.3 Billion dollars a year to Egypt. This is a payoff for peace. In the true Arab fashion, Egypt demanded this payoff in exchange for peace in the Sinai.

Now Mubarek is not a dictator who has designs on invading other countries. Egypt has exploding demographics, and very little commerce that can keep pace with all of the young people. Our aid package is essentially 1% of the entire Egyptian economy. If we pull that support there is the very real possibility that Egypt will create added chaos to a region Americans and Muslims alike want to see peacefully resolved.

So would you risk another decade of turmoil, and a worsening of the instabiltiy in Palestine? Can you assure me that the Muslim Brotherhood, and other precursor extremeist organizations will stay in check?

And, as I requested, what precisely would you have us do to Mubarek?

42

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
It is utterly laughable that you consider Arafat to be Democratically elected. He is a corrupt leader stripping the PA of millions. There was precisely one election, but Arafat has been leading the PA for over 30 years.
[/quote]

30 years? You are counting in the period when there was no PA. Just to refresh, rather introduce to your memory the fact that Arafat was a leader of the PLO, which was a liberation organization, not a political outfit. PA was formed in 1993, and Arafat was elected President in 1996. Im not a fan of Arafat, but the fact remains that he was democratically elected, and he fell victim to a hunger for his own legacy, and SHarons hunger for land land land.

[quote]
"From the above quoted statement, do you mean Iraq was attacked as a test case, so it would push other mideastern countries to democracy? "

I indeed believe this to be true. I believe that the case for WMD was pushed to the fron of the line because it was the only topinc on which UN agreement might be reached. France and Russia would never have agreed to the overthrow of Saddam, because of their own debt and business relations. These are the actors that REALLY enslaved the Iraqis, not the Halliburtons of the world.
[/quote]

So you admit that the US govt used false pretexts in order to stage an attack against Iraq. And somehow, you also found a way to blame France and Russia for that:) Thats a googly.

[quote]
Saddam showed us that even with the most debilitating sanctions in history, he could cling to power. We could shout ourselves horse and not dislodge a dictator the likes of Saddam.
[/quote]

But the question arises, why did the US need to get rid of Saddam? Why, when it was clear from CIA briefings that Saddam was NOT a danger to the US in any way....and the information about WMDs was questionable at best.

[quote]
What SHOULD the US do about various despots arount the world? Please enlighten us with the newest process in Foreign Affairs that will cause an abrupt change in despotic regimes!
[/QUOTE]

Oh well, for one, US can start off by having a uniform policy against all despotic regimes, rather than attack them based on personal presidential preferences. You have Castro 70 miles away from you, and hes as despotic and dictatorial as anyone else. So what keeps America from attacking Cuba to dislodge him?

Ohioguy...you completely miss the point in this thread. Hardly anyone here as a soft spot for Saddam or his likes. The complaints are more focused on lack of consistency, and abundance of arrogance on the part of US. If the US were to shout a slogan of 'might is right' and attack anyone, Id probably give them much more credit than when they claim to be the best and the goodest and the nicest, and at the same time attack countries for personal, rather than practical reasons.

43

"for one, US can start off by having a uniform policy against all despotic regimes"

No problem. That means that Musharraf is exactly like Charles Taylor, Aristide, Little Kim, and Arafat? they are precisely the same and should be dealt with in precisely the same way.

I think what you mean to say is that the principles should be the same. That a universal set of demands for human rights should be unwavering.

In principal I agree. The question is, how to achieve it. Musharraf is a good example of engagement.

Each and every country should be treated on it's own timeline with it's own plan, and with it's own limitations in mind. The idea is improvement in the general condition of humanity, not perfection. That means that compromise will also be in the equation. "Good enough" might also be a real world situation.

And frankly where do the people of the country come in? I have yet to reconcile how much power the US has to really influence anybody. At some point the good people of any country must help themselves. This means cracking down on corruption, militias, and respecting a rule of law. It also means religious, ethnic and tribal violence must stop, and peace must be negociated. The US cannot do all of these things for the entire world. Thus we sometimes support "Good Enough".

44

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *

I think what you mean to say is that the principles should be the same. That a universal set of demands for human rights should be unwavering.

[/QUOTE]

We could start by trying the US administration for war crimes.

45

"We could start by trying the US administration for war crimes."

Why bother, the left wing press has already tried and convicted the administration. The US has been excoriated by the press to the point where words have no meaning. Your constant posting of pictures, trying to convince the world that a picture is worth a thousand words, ignore the fact that the worst abuses do not occur in open societies, the worst abuses occur in the dark and the silence.

46

See OG you miss the point here,

The US global atrocities are the responsibility of the world community to deal with, for example when the US is abusing the rights of it’s citizens by passing these patriot acts, police race crimes, anti-government persecution etc, that is up to you as a citizen to support or stand against, but when the US trains mercenaries and supports them to kill innocent civilians in Nicaragua, that is a matter for the international courts and indeed was; much like the invasion and plunder and subsequent abuse of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not all pictures are worth a thousand words, but some are effective in dousing sanctimonious clap trap.

This image alone is enough to end all debate when approaching the subject with a holier than thou attitude:

[thumb=H]notorture18153_8122783.JPG[/thumb]
[thumb=H]Jesus118153_6559262.JPG[/thumb]

Persecution and public at that, leaves a lasting impression.

47

America's attacks against countries have been opportunistic, not because of their desire to bring democracy to their opponents, or to 'liberate' the people. As I said before, Iraq was never a threat to the US, neither was it a threat to anyone else for that matter. The attack was unjustified, and totally unrelated to any idea of liberation, or removal of a tyrrant. Ulterior motives were involved, theres no doubt about that.

[quote]
Each and every country should be treated on it's own timeline with it's own plan
[/quote]

Which brings us back to the point, werent there others ahead of Iraq on that timeline? N. Korea? Libya?
Funny thing is, Libya, a country with a despotic ruler, that was actively seeking WMDs, was disarmed through verbal threats and diplomacy, and Iraq, a country with no WMDs and a weak despot for a ruler was attacked. Now as we have it, Libya is sanction free, and Gaddafi is even allowed to berate Reagan after hes dead.

48

Chota,

"US global atrocities are the responsibility.." Are you kidding me? Saddam had hundreds of thousands of Kurds killed in the Anfal campaigns (Muslims), and to this day there is no world wide commission to investigate 20 years later. Had this been done, a war might have been averted. It was inaction on true genocide (not the popular overused version) that tipped the decsion for me. I care not a whit if Saddam had WMD, he was responsible for genocide, and you would think that Muslims might take some interest in that fact.

Akif, Libya did not twice invade neighbors starting regional wars. Libya did not have genocidal purges of the Kurds. The facts are not the same.

North Korea is arguably worse than Saddam. But Seoul is within artillery range of the North, and the outbreak of a war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the fisrt week. The facts clearly are not the same here, and require a different approach.

49

OG,

Who was the US supoorting when Saddam was carrying out his 'extra-judicial killings'?

Who is investigating the 'extra-judicial killings' carried out by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who should be investigating them?

271 killings in a year? More people are killed in a day in the US, maybe the human rights people need to look into why?

50

Now all of this screams that this is a regime that routinely, year in and year out, not just on some foreign battlefield, tortures and kills. (What hypocracy of those on this board to have missed this little bit of information) So why should we support Musharraf at all? Frankly you could write the same report about Egypt, Syria, half of the other 'Stans, most of Africa, and most of the Middle East! What do we do, sanction them all? Increase the guided missle production 100 fold until the torture stops?

In fact, just for comparison to our test case, Egypt, the same report for the same year shows the following:

"There were no reports of political killings or of extrajudicial killings of suspected terrorists by security forces during the year; however, police committed other extrajudicial killings.

The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) investigated the case of one extrajudicial killing by police. Mosaad Ahmed el-Sayed Abou Seif, age 19, who reportedly was surprised by police officers in his home in Shubra al-Khaima (north of Cairo) on March 27, was shot and killed on sight.

Human rights organizations and the press reported on the death in custody of the following 4 persons during the year, all of whom allegedly were tortured while being detained by police under suspicion of criminal activity: Mohamed Samir Aboul Wafa, Tarek Mahdy Abul Dahab, Tarek Massoud al-Ashkar, and Hisham Ahmad Abdel Ghani (see Section 1.c.). In addition, several cases of death under police torture from previous years remain unresolved."

In other words, in 2001, Hosni Mubarak may have been unelected, but his treatment of people appears to be substantially better than in Pakistan! So who should we “support”, and who are the real bad guys?

51

In the last 50 years America has done a great deal to promote "democratic" leadership in every corner of the world. Here are seven 'golden' examples:-

[thumb=H]Baby%20Doc2327_4191550.JPG[/thumb]
"Baby" Doc Duvalier of Haiti.

[thumb=H]Pinochet2327_8306460.JPG[/thumb]
General Pinochet of Chile.

[thumb=H]Marcos2327_3324634.JPG[/thumb]
Aloha! Marcos of the Philipines.

[thumb=H]Mobutu2327_4132117.JPG[/thumb]
Mobutu of former Zaire.

[thumb=H]Ceausescu2327_3947991.JPG[/thumb]
Ceausescu of Romania.

[thumb=H]shah2327_6001708.JPG[/thumb]
The Shah of Iran.
.....
Not forgetting Bad Sad with Don Rum.

[thumb=A]rumsad.JPG[/thumb]

52

This is all so rich. Of the 47 mostly Muslim countries, fewer than 1/4 are democracies, in contrast to more than 3/4 of the rest of the world. And of the Muslim countries that are considered 'democratic', only one - Mali - is a truly free society. Only Burma, Cuba, and North Korea can rival the majority of Muslim countries in repression and dictatorships. So this finger-pointing and sideline sitting from the peanut gallery is really quite amusing.

The rest of the world has become increasingly democratic while the Musim world is moving in the opposite direction. Under the leadership of the United States, the world has gone from a handful of democracies to over 120 in the last 100 years. People can post all the mug shots they want, it doesn't change those facts.

53

Now Seminole,

"Under the leadership of the United States, the world has gone from a handful of democracies to over 120 in the last 100 years."

Didn't we ALSO "support" the other 119 Democracies? Let us count up how many of those democracies would be under the thumb of totalitarian rulers has it not been for the US!

Never mind the countries like China (a billion people or so) who have moved from a hard line Communist totalitarian rule to a far more open society with a market driven economy. Not perfect, but progress. Funny how Nixon showing up can start to open up a closed society.

The glass-half-empty crowd will never remind you of the successes, only the failures...

What misses the mark around here is the the US policy today measures the progress and intent of a country in moving toward goals. Qaddafi may still be in power, but he has paid reparations for Lockerbee 103, and he has allowed complete, full and unhindered access to his weapons programs. That is progress by any measure.

54

Less we miss the point. Diplomatic pressure comes in all forms. Read up on the pressure put on Uzbekistan. Have you seen ANY progress in that country other than under US pressure?

Uzbeks promise to probe violent death in jail
26 May 2004 16:33:36 GMT

By Shamil Baigin

TASHKENT, May 26 (Reuters) - U.S. ally Uzbekistan has agreed to set up a commission to investigate the violent death of a suspect in a local jail, an Uzbek official said on Wednesday, after a human rights body suggested he was tortured. The inquiry is unprecedented in the secretive Central Asian state, where deaths in custody are common. The U.S. State Department is due to decide soon whether to “certify” Uzbek progress on human rights and democracy, without which Congress cannot approve tens of millions of dollars in aid.

The commission, to be headed by the Uzbek prosecutor-general, will also include Russian and U.S. diplomats, U.S. forensic experts and non-governmental organisations, an Uzbek government official told Reuters on condition of anonymity

55

^ nick christoff had a great piece in the NYtimes a week ago on the weapon of mass destruction that US has. Brittany Spears. A euphamism for American culture promoting individualism and free enterprise and democratic/citizen valuses that are changing the landscape fo the world for the better. The greatest students of American Mantra, Chinese, Russians, Indians..brazil, that is almost half the world pop and the one that is becoming American in their own way.

China is communist in name only...give it 10 more years, it will resemble more like vegas.

56

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
America's attacks against countries have been opportunistic, not because of their desire to bring democracy to their opponents, or to 'liberate' the people. As I said before, Iraq was never a threat to the US, neither was it a threat to anyone else for that matter. The attack was unjustified, and totally unrelated to any idea of liberation, or removal of a tyrrant. Ulterior motives were involved, theres no doubt about that.
[/QUOTE]

akif Your point about opportunity is correct, they have no desire for freedom for the people its about benefit for the US.

The US military and Government is not going thousands of miles of land and sea, building 14 military bases buliding the worlds biggets embassy for a temporary purpose as they claim. They there for a long tme unless they forced out!

The amerikkan brigade are so brainwashed they think there is hate campaign just becuase they amerikkans, its thier government policies that are the problem but they so wrapped up in blind patriotism they cannot see anything but thier own incorrect view on rest of the world!

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Akif, Libya did not twice invade neighbors starting regional wars. Libya did not have genocidal purges of the Kurds. The facts are not the same.

[/QUOTE]

OG...One of the two invasions of Iraq, combined with the genocide of Kurds was done under US watch, so please remove those two from the list. It was only after the second invasion, when US oil interests were threatened, when they stepped in. Otherwise, the invasion of Iran was supported/ignored by the US, as was the gassing of the Kurds.

[quote]
This is all so rich. Of the 47 mostly Muslim countries, fewer than 1/4 are democracies, in contrast to more than 3/4 of the rest of the world.
[/quote]

The US knows quite well that a truly democratic regime in countries like Saudi arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and even Iraq will not be US friendly. Knowing this fully well, US has never encouraged a move towards democracy in any of these countries. Full effort is being made to 'create' a democratic government in Iraq that is US friendly. And for where we do have democratic reps, the US refuses to acknowledge them, eg. Arafat.

A more simple explanation for all this would be to just say, the US looks out for its personal interests, whether those are fulfilled via a democratic regime, or a despotic regime. Beating around the bush, trying to justify things that are not true, or just dont exist, isnt a practical approach.

Fact is, US is just looking out for itself, which I dont necessarily disagree with....but they shouldnt make it seem like they are doing the world a favor by doing that.

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *

The US knows quite well that a truly democratic regime in countries like Saudi arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and even Iraq will not be US friendly. Knowing this fully well, US has never encouraged a move towards democracy in any of these countries. Full effort is being made to 'create' a democratic government in Iraq that is US friendly. And for where we do have democratic reps, the US refuses to acknowledge them, eg. Arafat.
[/quote]
Arafat is no more a democratic rep than Musharraf. How can you accuse US of not promoting democracy when you do not even know what it means? Why does the US not get any credit for the creation of 120+ democratic nations in the world but all the blame because there aren't any Muslim democracies? Is it a conspiracy by the US or is extremism too prevelent in Muslim societies to handle democracy?

[quote]
A more simple explanation for all this would be to just say, the US looks out for its personal interests, whether those are fulfilled via a democratic regime, or a despotic regime. Beating around the bush, trying to justify things that are not true, or just dont exist, isnt a practical approach.

Fact is, US is just looking out for itself, which I dont necessarily disagree with....but they shouldnt make it seem like they are doing the world a favor by doing that.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone pretends US foreign policy to be altruistic as its core. What is true is that the consequences of American foreign policy has been the proliferation of democracies throughout the world. As to why Muslim nations have not shared in this march toward freedom is more of a question for the Muslims themselves to answer instead of blaming America.

59

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *

Fact is, US is just looking out for itself, which I dont necessarily disagree with....but they shouldnt make it seem like they are doing the world a favor by doing that.
[/QUOTE]

I'm all for this clear stance, why shouldn't the most powerful nation on Earth do as it pleases? I'm sure any other nation in the same position would.

It is however a poisoned chalice as has been evident for the past 50 years, but the benefits certainly outweigh this anti-American fervour that has swept the globe. Sticks and stones.

60

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *

Fact is, US is just looking out for itself, which I dont necessarily disagree with....but they shouldnt make it seem like they are doing the world a favor by doing that.
[/QUOTE]

This is a classic thought process of a capitalist nation. As muslims we don`t have mentality of doing something just because we getting money from it. We do an action which is in line with islam.

Otherwise we no different than the capitalists.