GameBanshee Forums

The unequal response to uprisings in the middle east typify the way the 'West' (which mostly means the US and it's puppet the UK of course) continually mishandles it's foreign affairs to its own detriment.

There have been excessive use of force in several of the countries experiencing popular protests against the ruling dictatorships, yet the difference between the 'West's@ response to Liberia and Bahrain for example couldn't be more stark.

Taken the uneven approach to dictatorships in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the past, and the US's knee jerk support for Israel no matter what crimes that country commits, is it any wonder that most people in the middle east hate us?

Or it could be that they know - or have seen - that just rolling in with military does not automatically sovle the problem.
Plus it is not new - the Balkan situation some years ago bears many similarities to this.

Trying to enforce a no-flight zone over Liberia will likely be immensely ineffective leading to the need for ground troops or added military and with the USA and many other countries already spread thin in several other hot-zones (Denmark is I know) that will also take a toll both in manpower and financial.
If anybody shoots down a Liberian plane, we have a vastly different military and diplomatic situation.

So the statement looks much more to be a damned if they do, damned if they don't.
How many would have complained if they had went in with full military force in Liberia as well?
"Now the US is going to another War and that is why "they hate" them". And then people would have claimed it was for the oil and what not.

People complain and rant that the US/West is going in, into conflicts, and people complain and rant when they don't, and this time it'll be no different.

It is no wonder people hate the US/West, however the hate always seems to stem from exactly the opposite of what they're doing - regardless of the actions and events. It's the main constant.

Let us go on with a few "What if's :"

What if the revolutions (because its not a civil war yet) got beaten by the army?
They would either accept defeat, and continue the previous cycles with the same people staying in power, and then their sons etc.
OR they would turn to radical islamists, and thus gain sufficient firepower to start a civil war.

How can the revolutions fail?
The army has only two advantages, airforce and armored vehicles / artillery, but these are sufficient even in low quanity to take care of the situation

What if the airforce and AC got disabled?
The revolution couldn't fail

What if entire nation will join the uprising?
Then the airforce and vehicles won't matter, and they'll succeed.

When will the entire nation rise up / why haven't they yet?
When the cuase is right, everyone joins it. As Poland has proved time and again in the last centuries.

Finally.. Why should the west bother with Liberia & co, when the true problem is, was and will be Israel oh, that's right, because the poor jewish people suffered during WW2.. So now it's okay for them to go berserk on innocent civilians.

In short : The only way of permanently setting the trouble in M-east is to hold Israel agression. The revolutions will take care of themselves. The european ones managed to win a revolution with a far greater foe than some lowly king - USSR.

I'm not sure how you can link democratic revolutions/protests in Libya, Bahrain, Egypt etc. with the Israel/Palestine conflict (I'm not saying that it's not a major conflict in the Middle East, but I'm just not sure they're are linked with the current democratic uprisings).

What is the assumption, that radical islamists (I think neo-fundamentalists would be more correct, but that's another discussion entirely) have enough manpower or that they are sufficiently armed to fully take on the government or that they could find a common cause with the democratic movements, based on? My understanding is that these kinds of groups have a very varied presence from state to state ranging from no serious threat to serious threat to the governments.

To Xandax: I think there is a major difference in warfare against and occupation of Iraq based on very narrow justifications and casus belli, with ever changing arguments to legitimize it (moving from weapons of mass destruction to introducing democracy - forced democracy without any prior mass request for such action) and aiding exsisting democratic movements requesting support in very concrete ways.

I'm not sure I would talk about the failure of the West (I'm not even sure it's truly meaningfull to speak of such an entity), because that would imply, that the West is a coherent entity with constant and consistent goals and methods of achieving them - and all of us who live in this supposed "West" know that we are in fact not always united in ideas, goals etc.

If we go back a couple of years to the Bush-era, I would say that it would be a massive hypocracy and failure for that administration (and it's allies) not to aid democratic uprisings in the Middle-East, because it became such an important legitimizing argument for the Bush-administation's foreign policy in that region - espcially in regards to Iraq. But things have changed new people or parties are in power in many parts of the "West" and with them a change in policy.

Of course such discussions are based on idealism, which is all well and good, but I fully get that politicians, diplomats etc. need to be more pragmatic when dealing with the actual conflicts with the limited ressources available and whatever other factors constrain them.

Overall I would say that foreign policy based on the idea of violently fighting for democracy all over the world has been toned down these last couple of years.

I'm not sure how you can link democratic revolutions/protests in Libya, Bahrain, Egypt etc. with the Israel/Palestine conflict

How the West screws up!

Taken the uneven approach to dictatorships in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the past, and the US's knee jerk support for Israel no matter what crimes that country commits, is it any wonder that most people in the middle east hate us?

I'm not sure how can you not see the link.

What is the assumption, that radical islamists (I think neo-fundamentalists would be more correct, but that's another discussion entirely) have enough manpower or that they are sufficiently armed to fully take on the government or that they could find a common cause with the democratic movements, based on? My understanding is that these kinds of groups have a very varied presence from state to state ranging from no serious threat to serious threat to the governments.

They are better armed than civilians, and with the amount of people participating in the movements, anything above "unarmed" is sufficient.

What makes you think the protesters are democratic? Sure that's the picture the media have tried to paint, but I doubt that there is much truth in it. They just want the guy they don't like out and someone they do like in, whoever that is. It's almost as ludicrous an assumption as Obama's (who looks an awful lot like a black Dubya these days!) assumption that because they are 'Democratic' protesters that makes them automatically friends of Israel!!!

If you can't see how the US in particular (with the UK, Europe, Australia and Canada usually tagging along behind) invading Iraq, and trying to get Libya trashed because they ignore UN resolutions; whilst they continue to finance and support Israel, which has broken more UN resolutions than both of them together, is alienating most people in the Middle East I'm baffled. I can only assume that you don't want to see.

The attack on the Twin Towers was orchestrated and carried out almost exclusively by Saudis, several of whom are closely related to the Saudi royal family. So how come the US and it's puppets invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, tries to isolate Iran and and nothing about Saudi Arabia? Hmm, let's see, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are anti Israel whilst Saudi Arabia isn't. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Oh, and before any pro Israelis start in with their usual anti-Semetic accusations (not a reference to anyone who has posted here so far by the way), just remember that Palestinians, and in fact all Arabs, are also Semetic.

I'm not sure if you responding to what I wrote, but if you are, I feel I must make this clear: I'm not saying nor did I remotely write anything along the lines of democratic movements = pro-Israel. What I did try to say is that I see no direct link between fx uprisings against Gadaffi and feelings toward Israel.

the Israel/Palestine conflict is a major conflict and I agree with your statement that: "US in particular (with the UK, Europe, Australia and Canada usually tagging along behind) invading Iraq, and trying to get Libya trashed because they ignore UN resolutions; whilst they continue to finance and support Israel, which has broken more UN resolutions than both of them together, is alienating most people in the Middle East" - though I will say that fx Europe is and have been divided in it is policy towards the Middle East region and wether or not to join USA in every war etc. The "West" is nothing, but a black and white theoretical construction.

"So how come the US and it's puppets invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, tries to isolate Iran and and nothing about Saudi Arabia? Hmm, let's see, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are anti Israel whilst Saudi Arabia isn't. Coincidence? I don't think so." - this I'm not sure I agree with. It's based on a very narrow speculation.

As for wether or not the uprisings are democratic or to what degree is an interesting question. I think that most info points toward the democratic trend, to what degree is of course another matter entirely.

TAKR86 wrote:I'm not saying nor did I remotely write anything along the lines of democratic movements = pro-Israel.

Sorry if I was obscure, the reference was to something Barak Obama said along those likes.

Rest deleted by user.

TAKR86 wrote:<snip>
To Xandax: I think there is a major difference in warfare against and occupation of Iraq based on very narrow justifications and casus belli, with ever changing arguments to legitimize it (moving from weapons of mass destruction to introducing democracy - forced democracy without any prior mass request for such action) and aiding exsisting democratic movements requesting support in very concrete ways.
<snip>

I never claimed otherwise.

What I'm saying is that if the West and the US had decided to go in with military force earlier/faster - people would be here complaining about the imperialism and how they just wanted to secure the oil.

Now they take a more cautious road (because it really is not a simple solution to "fix") - people just complain about that instead because the target of the complains is the same, and the justification for it just follow the events happening somewhere in the world.


Some people dislike the US/West for a lot of reason, some justified / some not, and therefore it wouldn't matter much what is done overall either way. It's how it goes and how it's been shown in the past.

There seems to be confusion over what 'No fly zone' means. It seems that the British and French definition is kill anything that moves, whether it's in the air or not.

It's pretty obvious that what the NATO forces are engaged in is regime change, which isn't what the UN mandate was supposed to be for.

I've got no time for Gaddafi, the guy is more than a sandwich short of a picnic, but of course he's also sitting on an awful lot of oil! Just a coincidence of course, the US and UK would never use ignoring a UN resolution as an excuse to get their hands on someone else's oil reserves would they?

From what I recall, when he first started out Gaddafi wasn't actually that bad.. he spent a lot of the oil wealth on things like hospitals, housing and education. Which, I'd imagine, also irritated the West.

However, much like Robert Mugabe, he's become a megalomaniac, amongst other things.

And yes... I think we've seen this movie before in the not so distant past...
Yet, the West still seems to profess innocence and astonishment at the way they are perceived as the villain in many Middle Eastern nations..

Not that I'm any big supporter of radical Islam (yes, I know a somewhat different conversation but the two often conflate) , but this kind of stupidity just amplifies long existing tensions straight over the edge.
Yes, 9/11 was horrible, there is no justification for it. However, there *was* a reason for it... something that often seems to be conveniently ignored.

he spent a lot of the oil wealth on things like hospitals, housing and education. Which, I'd imagine, also irritated the West.

You could almost be describing Fidel Castro there DW! Of course what he really did to tick off the US was to kick out the mafia's puppet Batista, and close down all the casinos and brothels so popular amongst Washington's elite!:mischief:

galraen wrote:You could almost be describing Fidel Castro there DW! Of course what he really did to tick off the US was to kick out the mafia's puppet Batista, and close down all the casinos and brothels so popular amongst Washington's elite!:mischief:

My hero!

Actually.. not totally accurate.. I've been to Cuba and while I deeply respect much of what Castro has achieved, there are plenty of problems. Not to mention that the Soviet-style propaganda amongst most government bodies is pretty obnoxious.
My guess though, having talked to quite a few people there, is that they don't want to run off and embrace US "democracy." Rather, my sense is that they'd more lean to something of a Scandinavian model.

Er sorry, that was a bit OT

dragon wench wrote:My hero!

Actually.. not totally accurate.. I've been to Cuba and while I deeply respect much of what Castro has achieved, there are plenty of problems. Not to mention that the Soviet-style propaganda amongst most government bodies is pretty obnoxious.
My guess though, having talked to quite a few people there, is that they don't want to run off and embrace US "democracy." Rather, my sense is that they'd more lean to something of a Scandinavian model.

Er sorry, that was a bit OT

I wasn't actually referring to whether Fidel's regime was good or not, that's for the Cuban people to decide; I was referring to the reasons behind the US establishments obsessive and irrational hatred of him.

True that

I'm actually very scatterbrained and distracted right now owing to RL, and didn't read your post as closely as I should have.

galraen wrote:There seems to be confusion over what 'No fly zone' means. It seems that the British and French definition is kill anything that moves, whether it's in the air or not.

It's pretty obvious that what the NATO forces are engaged in is regime change, which isn't what the UN mandate was supposed to be for.

I've got no time for Gaddafi, the guy is more than a sandwich short of a picnic, but of course he's also sitting on an awful lot of oil! Just a coincidence of course, the US and UK would never use ignoring a UN resolution as an excuse to get their hands on someone else's oil reserves would they?

Or it could be that people who felt the west were moving too slow did not fully understand what is needed to enforce a no-fly zone and now is having problems with that, despite urging on a military solution in the first place.

And the UN mandate is pretty liberal if you look at it.

US broke the cease-fire, because allegedly Gadaffi's forces took shots at civilians.

Thoughts?

I find it very easy to not believe the story, and foresee certain oil reserves changing owners very soon. This may not be the case, but regardless of what happens, what can we do.
A year ago i would care, but now i don't, as long as the price of fuel will not jump by yet another 20c / l.

At this point only Russia intervention could disrupt the lovely "peace operation". I wonder, should the Rus intervene, like they did at least once before, will the US oil hunter withdraw without saying a word, or will the commies be named terrorists and fiends aswell.

Hmm, now that the fighting is raging, i wonder if Gadaffi will also be publicly executed.

This may be a wild idea, but a few days back they were trying diplomatic solutions
Then suddenly "Gadaffi's forces started killing civilians! SEND IN THE MISSILES!"
Which resulted in aid for the rebels, without a single action to aid the civilians.
And now it doesn't even matter "why?" anymore.

A few stepps more (a few days) and Gadaffi will also have hidden nuclear warheads that threaten the USA freedom and safety...

Although i hope that even if they will kill him, the video will not be streamed world wide as Saddam's execution was. It was too much. Every four year old could watch the video (in HD no less!) in the middle of the day, not to mention the few cases where children were playing "Execution" afterwards.