Baron: Like the Sudan and the Darfur region of Africa? The world should just stand by and let the people of Darfur be slaughtered ....and do nothing?
Baron when you say the 'world' do you mean 'the world' or do you simply refer to Western nations? Beside the fact that the world hasn't done anything, the world also isn't able to do anything save send in thousands of fighting troops, topple the government and replace it with OUR leader of choice. On the other hand the world can also choose a side, arm it and hope they win the battle. Both paths have had dire conseqences for 'the west' when played out on non-western nations which always lead to a backlash, the same backlash we see in Afghanistan right now. Look at the results of intervention in Vietnam which only brought on the opposite intended result; a strong nationalist communist regime that kicked the U.S ass and left americans troubled and tormented for years on end. Funny thing is that if you go to Vietnam today there is no trauma, they've moved on and welcome americans without resentment which is easy for them considering they won the war though at the expense of over a million dead. Why? Because they knew why they fought! They were given the moral high-ground.
Baron: And please, be specific about the policy ....another wild accusation is not citing the particular "policy" of the US government. WHICH POLICY?!
Ok but the list is long and covers virtually every corner of the world so let us begin with Iraq. If you read the following links you will arrive at these three undeniable historical facts which are the direct outcome of U.S foreign policy:
1. U.S supports militant dictator called Saddam Hussein
2. Creates the impoverishment of Iraqi people
3. Wages war on these same people all for its own national interests.
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Edited by Joyce Battle, February 25, 2003. Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.Stoward Ira. Tilts q, 1980-1984
Excerpt:
'The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was one of a series of crises during an era of upheaval in the Middle East: revolution in Iran, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by militant students, invasion of the Great Mosque in Mecca by anti-royalist Islamicists, the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, and internecine fighting among Syrians, Israelis, and Palestinians in Lebanon. The war followed months of rising tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and secular nationalist Iraq. In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.
The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)'
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. IRAQ RECIEVED MASSIVE EXTERNAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE GULF STATES, AND ASSISTANCE THROUGH LOAN PROGRAMS FROM THE U.S WHITE HOUSE AND STATE DEPRATMENT PRESSURED THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK TO PROVIDE IRAQ WITH FINANCING, TO ENHANCE ITS CREDIT STANDING AND ENABLE IT TO OBTAIN LOANS FROM OTHER INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. THE U.S. AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT PROVIDED TAXPAYER-GUARANTEED LOANS FOR PURCHASES OF AMERICAN COMMODITIES TO THE SATISFACTION OF U.S GRAIN EXPORTERS. THE U.S RESTORED FORMAL RELATIONS WITH IRAQ IN NOVEMBER 1984, BUT THE U.S. HAD BEGUN, SEVERAL YEARS EARLIER, TO PROVIDE IT WITH INTELLIGENCE AND MILITARY SUPPORT (IN SECRET AND CONTRARY TO THIS COUNTRY'S OFFICIAL NEUTRALITY) IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY DIRECTIVES FROM PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN. THESE WERE PREPARED PURSUANT TO HIS MARCH
1982 NATIONAL SECURITY STUDY MEMORANDUM (NSSM 4-82) ASKING FOR A REVIEW OF U.S POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Then the U.S has the nerve to force U.N santions on Iraq which threw the country into a devastating humantarian crises it heretofore had yet to experience:
'Throughout the 1990s, regular surveys by the Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Food Programme documented the lack of food in Iraq and its effect on vulnerable groups. In 1996 the World Health Organisation reported on health, morbidity and mortality data for 1989-1994 and commented: Comparing levels of the infant mortality rate (IMR) and the mortality of children under 5 years old during the pre war period (1988-1989) with that during the period of the sanctions (since 1990), it is clear that the IMR has doubled and the mortality rate for children under 5 years old has increased six times. (21) VARIOUS AGENCIES, INCLUDING UNICEF, PRESENTED REPORTS TO THE COUNCIL, CATALOGUING THE SUFFERING, BUT THE US AND THE UK USED THEIR DIPLOMATIC WEIGHT AND THREATENED USE OF THE VETO TO BLOCK REMEDIAL ACTION BEYOND THE OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM. (22) THESE TWO COUNTRIES ALSO USED THEIR CONSIDERABLE INFLUENCE WITH THE NEWS MEDIA TO DOWNPLAY THE SEROUSNESS OF THE HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN IRAQ, ACCUSING HUMANITARIAN AGENCIES OF BAD SCIENCE OR EVEN COMPLICITY WITH THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT. (23) THE TWO PARTNERS PORTRAYED THEMSELVES AS WELL-MEANING, INNOCENT VICTIMS OF SADDAM'S FINELY-TUNED PROPAGANDA MACHINE.'
Global Policy Forum. Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future.
I saved this but the original link was posted by Bells.
Anyway after using the Iraqi government at the expense of its people we use the U.N to sanction (isolate) the country before we come up with a bunch of lies supporting our need to conquer the country at the expense of innocent Iraqi people. The mistake in our policy is beautifully highlighted by Col. W. Patrick Lang, Jr a retired Army colonel member of the Senior Executive Service who served with Special Forces in Vietnam. Lang is an Arabic professor at West Point who also served as chief defense intelligence officer for the Middle East. He says:
'Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into our vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out. In our dream version of Iraq, we would be greeted as not only liberators from the tyrant, but more importantly, from the old ways. Having inhabited the same state for 80 years, the Iraqi people would naturally see themselves as a unified Iraqi nation, moving forward into eventual total assimilation in that unified human nation. Unfortunately for us and for them, that was not the real Iraq. In the real Iraq, cultural distinction from the West is still treasured, a manifestation of participation in the Islamic cultural “continent.” Tribe, sect, and community remain far more important than individual rights. One does not vote for candidates outside one’s community unless one is a Baathist, Nasserist, or Communist (or, perhaps, a believer in world “flatness” like Tom Friedman and the neocons). But Iraqis know what Americans want to hear about “identity,” and be they Shiite, Kurd, or Sunni Arab, they tell us that they are all Iraqis.
Finding ourselves in the wrong Iraq, Americans have stubbornly insisted that the real Iraqis should behave as our dream Iraqis would surely do. The result has been frustration, disappointment, and finally rage against the “craziness” of the Iraqis. We are still acting out our dream, insisting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Shiite sectarian government “unify” the state, imagining that Maliki is a sort of Iraqi George Washington seeking the greater good for all. He is not that. His chief task is to consolidate Shiite Arab power while using the United States to accomplish the deed. To that end, he will tell us whatever we want to be told. He will sacrifice however many of his brethren are necessary to maintain the illusion, so long as the loss is not crippling to his effort. He will treat us as the naifs that we are.
Through our refusal to deal with alien peoples on their own terms, and within their own traditions, we have killed any real hope of a positive outcome in Iraq. Our mission there will be over some day, but there will be other fields for our missionary work, other dreams to dream about: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran ... Let us seek within ourselves the wisdom to avoid another such catastrophe.'
What Iraq Tells Us About Ourselves By Col. W. Patrick Lang, Jr.
www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3734
I hope you read thoroughly read through the links Baron, I would be interested on your conclusionss.
