Egypt

[Relic]

I agree it's complicated, but I honestly don't see much evidence that the "will" of many large countries is directed towards many concerns that don't, directly or indirectly, affect themselves. That is, if a country is concerned with humanitarian concerns somewhere else, it is largely because that other place has sone kind of economic, security, or other relationship with them.

This is much more of a factor, I believe, in a large country. A smaller more cohesive nation might be able to make a more humanitarian stand in a united manner ... perhaps. This is purely a matter of scale and momentum - a jogger can manoeuvre more adeptly than a 747.

It depends on how deeply you want to delve into the humanitarian aspect though. The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and many others are very giving in the humanitarian aide dept. Some of it official gov't aide, but much also through private charities. In regards to gov't aide - yeah, that may be self-serving in the effect that with food and supplies a given nation might be made more stable and in turn, making us safer. Maybe we can even get some financial gain out of a country that we stabilize...etc etc. But on the flip side, what does your average person get out of giving to a private charity? The amount of private aide coming from your country, mine and many others is huge - I seriously doubt that all of those who support private charities are doing it in a self-serving mindset.

 

[onosson]

It depends on how deeply you want to delve into the humanitarian aspect though. The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and many others are very giving in the humanitarian aide dept. Some of it official gov't aide, but much also through private charities. In regards to gov't aide - yeah, that may be self-serving in the effect that with food and supplies a given nation might be made more stable and in turn, making us safer. Maybe we can even get some financial gain out of a country that we stabilize...etc etc. But on the flip side, what does your average person get out of giving to a private charity? The amount of private aide coming from your country, mine and many others is huge - I seriously doubt that all of those who support private charities are doing it in a self-serving mindset.

Oh yes - I'm only speaking about politics and national government-level actions, not individuals.

 

[EBodious]

a friend turned me on to this article. it is not without its own prejudices, but i think the over-arching point is well placed and hopefully a valuable entry into this discussion. the last paragraph sums it up well:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/31/narcissism_egypt

 

[Donny Bassman]

Imagine


Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon

 

[hrodbert696]

Without quoting all the relevant previous posts: I wouldn't put it quite as cynically as Relic did, but I agree with his basic point; human rights and democracy abroad is one plank of US foreign policy, among several others. All other things being equal, the US government gives warmer support to democratic regimes that protect rights than to those that don't. I think it's not just a pipe dream to do so; 1) it's good PR for the US, and 2) those kinds of regimes are less likely to attack their neighbors and create disturbances that run counter to US interests than militaristic dictatorships. But don't expect the US to stand up for a democratic regime that's going to elect fundamentalists who want to fire nuclear missiles at us or (during the cold war) support the Russians doing so.

And (back to Egypt, people) Mubarak is precisely the illustration of this. He's a bad job, a dictator, violator of his people's rights. No freedom of the press, no dissent allowed, sham elections, people getting thrown in jail or worse for objecting. On the other hand, he wasn't sending the Egyptian army to attack Israel or any other neighbors (nor indulging in threats to do so), he was not a hindrance (if not much of a help) to efforts to bring some kind of stability to Palestine, he kept the Islamists out of power in Egypt. He was, in a phrase, not Saddam Hussein. Given the options (or lack thereof), it's no big surprise that the US would have supported him over the last decade or more. Now that his number is up, what we hear from the State Department is just what you would expect -- we would love to see peace, justice, and democracy in Egypt. But above all, we would like to see stability and a government we can work with.

 

[rockstarbassist]

Imagine


Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon

Yeah, life is pretty easy for dead guys, I gotta say.

 

[warwick.hoy]

stability in the region is generally what is preferred by the west.....we will put up with almost anyone as long as they keep the machine rolling....once things become unstable,we can trot out human rights abuses to justify replacing any leader that makes us uncomfortable....

On the surface and by you and I maybe,...but I hardly consider that region stable. Keeping that region destabilized breeds terrorism and gives westerners a common enemy to fear and be united against. This affords our leaders a certain amount of control over the population in the form of; "Vote for me; I'm tough on terrorism; I'll protect you from your worst nightmares" (which is utter BS).

Before terrorism it was communism; but wait didn't we defeat communism, nooooo; communism fell under the weight of it's own corruption. Basically what I'm saying is if you are currently in power,...it is in your best interest to keep the middle east destabilized if you seek to remain in power.

 

[aborgman]

I'm not saying that, but don't pretend that it's a democratic or free society in the way that the US is, because it's not. See: Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, etc. Those states were not free, and those people were not free, at least in any way that most people with western eyes would view freedom.

Comparing modern day Egypt with Iran, Taliban era Afghanistan, etc. is pretty out there.

...and regardless of whether they are free or democratic societies, the will of the people should be respected.

Also like I said, the government that seizes control in the fray is just that, the one that seizes control, and I don't think you can necessarily think that it's always an accurate representation of what the people want.

You mean like the current Egyptian government that seized power in a coup?

If you've got a situation where people come out and protest against an oppressive government, and as a result of the fray, some one comes out and establishes them self or their party as the governing body, and 2 years in announces a new sweeping set of oppressive laws, opens camps, and does other things like that, you can't just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh, well that's what they wanted" and let them have at it.

Yes, you can.

Never mind that pushing a government on a country often leads in that direction. The overthrow of the Shah and the success of the Iranian Islamic Revolution is directly attributable to US and British actions in overthrowing the democratically elected Mosaddeq.

 

[aborgman]

No, while the US empire has it's fair share of dirty deeds on it's ledger, the US has behaved better than any world power when we dolly back and see the bigger picture.

Now THAT is a "top turd on the dungpile" assertion if I've ever seen one.

 

[aborgman]

Secondly, realpolitik. Politics are and always have been about power.

Correct.

That is not an immoral aberration,

An immoral aberration - no.

Immoral - yes.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Immoral - yes.

Immoral, or amoral?

 

[Fishheadjoe]

It's been interesting to watch as the U.S, who have historically supported the current regime, have as of yesterday, begun supporting the protestors...
You could'nt turn on any news based channels yesterday, without seeing Hillary talking about supporting freedom etc...
However, should the current regime in Egypt survive this uprising, I wonder how the U.S. is going to make good with the regime, considering their current stance.
Fishheadjoe

 

[Relic]

​

On the surface and by you and I maybe,...but I hardly consider that region stable. Keeping that region destabilized breeds terrorism and gives westerners a common enemy to fear and be united against. This affords our leaders a certain amount of control over the population in the form of; "Vote for me; I'm tough on terrorism; I'll protect you from your worst nightmares" (which is utter BS).

I dunno. I'm not going to claim that you're wrong about that entirely (there's a lot of truth in it, I'll admit it) but I do think that that's a very narrow and near "conspiracy theory" view on politics in general. Again, my own opinion is that there are a lot more to things than we realize - that's the problem. We all look at one aspect and argue it to the death when it reality there are a few "right answers".

Before terrorism it was communism; but wait didn't we defeat communism, nooooo; communism fell under the weight of it's own corruption. Basically what I'm saying is if you are currently in power,...it is in your best interest to keep the middle east destabilized if you seek to remain in power.

Again - there's another point that has some truth in it but it's nowhere near the 'whole truth". Communism fell for a variety of reasons many of which were directly instigated and supported by the West. Even the Catholic church had a hand in it with electing John Paul II - a Polish pope. Now remember that Poland was the second largest communist country in Europe at the time whose population remained very Roman Catholic despite the government's attempts at limiting the church's power. It was basically a powder keg that just needed a little push to start the dominoes falling.

 

[onosson]

Immoral, or amoral?

Very good point ... I don't think morality has much of anything to do with how most nations conduct themselves on the world stage. Morality is a human concern - and nations are not human beings.

 

[SurferJoe46]

Its only a matter of time befor thee american people wake up and see that there freedom is an illusion.

"just plastic soldgers in a miniture dirt war"

"Homeland Security" - call it what it really is: Martial Law.

 

[warwick.hoy]

I dunno. I'm not going to claim that you're wrong about that entirely (there's a lot of truth in it, I'll admit it) but I do think that that's a very narrow and near "conspiracy theory" view on politics in general. Again, my own opinion is that there are a lot more to things than we realize - that's the problem. We all look at one aspect and argue it to the death when it reality there are a few "right answers".



Again - there's another point that has some truth in it but it's nowhere near the 'whole truth". Communism fell for a variety of reasons many of which were directly instigated and supported by the West. Even the Catholic church had a hand in it with electing John Paul II - a Polish pope. Now remember that Poland was the second largest communist country in Europe at the time who's population remained very Roman Catholic despite the government's attempts at limiting the church's power.​

I'll concede that there is no way to sum up politics in such a neat little box and there are a ton of aspects that even politicians themselves don't understand. Take my opinions with a grain of salt and I'm not much of a conspiracy nut. I bring it up in an effort to get people to think a little more critically about the way politics and foreign policy works as opposed to just blindly following the leader. Fear is a powerful tool and a great distraction.​

 

[UncleFluffy]

Very good point ... I don't think morality has much of anything to do with how most nations conduct themselves on the world stage. Morality is a human concern - and nations are not human beings.

I'm not so sure. If there wasn't an element of morality somewhere in the mix we would have probably wiped ourselves out completely by now. Gotta keep positive

 

[Relic]

I'll concede that there is no way to sum up politics in such a neat little box and there are a ton of aspects that even politicians themselves don't understand. Take my opinions with a grain of salt and I'm not much of a conspiracy nut. I bring it up in an effort to get people to think a little more critically about the way politics and foreign policy works as opposed to just blindly following the leader. Fear is a powerful tool and a great distraction.

No problem dude, point well-taken!

 

[Relic]

"Homeland Security" - call it what it really is: Martial Law.

No it's not. Not even close. It is definitely something that we are not used to as a nation though and seems to be in direct conflict to what we were founded upon.

 

[aborgman]

Immoral, or amoral?

Immoral.