Post

There Are Countless Examples, But Egypt Is A Good And Current One..

America loves democracy, right? Remember when Obama went to Cairo in 2009 and spewed all that rhetoric about the Arab world needing to be more progressive and democratic? I loved it, because I believed he was speaking the truth. I believed that he, and America, really wanted that to happen. They were just words, just bullshit words that Dubya and the others have put out there over the years.

Let's be clear about international relations. You can only find a handful of historians and diplomats who speak the truth about it all. At least there are the Wikileaks cables from the embassies. The knowledgeable people who are not on the payroll for the government or big businesses (they are almost interchangeable) will tell you that there are no countries that are friends to the US; there are just interests. The US approves of foreign governments that serve their own needs. Doesn't matter how they govern; it's how they serve US interests that matters.

This is what realpolitik is. The American government does not care about what is moral. They do not really care about spreading democracy. They just care about solidifying their own interests, or better yet furthering them. That is what foreign policy is all about.

It's been happening for decades, but Egypt, as I mentioned, is a good and current example of this. Remember when the protests started? Nevermind the loony-bin right-wingers; even the White House was calling for Mubarak to stay in power in the name of stability. Only in the past few days has the prez called for him to step down (which won't amount to much, if his psycho torturer, recently appointed vice-prez is put in charge). He has served American interests for the past 30 years, and as a reward, his family is now worth around $70-80 billion dollars. Oooh, 'stabillity' !

They don't care about Egyptian democracy; they want whatever system that can maintain or further their own interests. Only when the results of the protests appeared inevitable did the White House side with the protesters. Gotta lick your finger and see from where the wind is blowing. I'm blown away that the majority of Americans are blind to this stuff. Your government could give a **** about the world becoming democratic. It's just something that those in charge have to say, even though it's not what they really want.

Hypocrisy Now.
FallaciesAppease FallaciesAppease 26-30, M 6 Responses Feb 12, 2011

Your Response

Cancel

I can come across as cynical, but as I've said before, this can come from what I believe to be a realistic state of mind. I am not one of those conspiracy people. I base my theories from actual facts, not the other way around. Dumbass ideas come from those who have a belief, and then hunt and peck for information that supports their ideas (ie., 'creationism').

Of course the US wants stability in the Middle East. Even at the cost of democracy there. That was my point. They would rather have dictators who are sympathetic to US causes (because they are basically being bribed) than have their governments elected by their own people. Governments don't serve the interests of their own people, nevermind the interests of the populations of other countries; they serve their own interests. It's really not that wacky.



Mubarak made his billions through corruption, as most dictators have. He used his iron-fist to stay in office, with America's approval. As long as they didn't stir up **** with Israel again, it didn't matter to the US how he governed.



I think Obama the person meant what he said during that speech. Obama the President can throw out the idealistic rhetoric, but when things like the Egyptian revolution happen, he has to walk the line as any other prez would do. The Egypt example just makes it soo obvious.



I want to get into the history a bit, but I'll try not to be too long-winded. All of this kind of bullshit comes back to WWII. America had mostly been an isolationist when it came to world affairs. The destruction of Europe and all of the insane treaties made afterwards put America on a pedestal. The UK, France, and the rest of the Allies all agreed to crippling trade agreements with the US in exchange for loans and aid for rebuilding. The US dollar also became the world's currency.

The US positioned itself to be a superpower. They took advantage of the situation and they also had to compete with the USSR. After the war, the Soviets began installing puppet governments in Eastern Europe and all across the globe. The States responded by doing the same. It'd take a lot of typing to list all of the US-backed dictators who were thrown into power from 1945-60, and it's continued well beyond those crazy years. They did it to serve their own interests, which back then were mainly to stop the 'spread of Communism' (ahahaha), but it's evolved over the years. It's mainly about economics now, and their power on the world stage. Interests in stability = interests in economics. There are no friends between countries, believe me.

It is never a futile endeavor to try and debate politics, if you ask me. I love it. And while you and I usually see eye to eye on a lot of things, we are in disagreement on this.

I'm the lame one though. I will start off by saying that I am not nearly as pessimistic and shockingly cynical as you are concerning diplomacy. I think that the U.S. wants stability at all cost because this region is so vitally important to the rest of the world. Two words:

Suez Canal.

Of course there is much more to it than that. It is never that simple, but that is a good starting off point for discussion. I think it's true that foriegn policy is self-serving. That 's the point. Governments should be elected by the people and they should in turn serve those people's best interests. That is what successful governments do anyway. And maybe when they don't, you have what you have in Egypt right now.

But in a country with a government that is being supported by another outside govenment (like ours) things get a little tricky. It should be noted that the money that the US sends to Egypy goes/went disproportunately to their military, I believe. In fact Egypt's top military officers were at the White House when the demonstrations first started, if I have my timing/facts right.

I don't know much about why or how Mubarack stayed in office as long as he did or where his billions came from. I do think that was has happened is a good thing, even if it exposes some shady, sef-serving back room deals that have been struck over the years. I am not so naive as to believe that this is not what makes the world go round. I just don't look at all from such a conspiracy-minded perspective.

Also I think Obama meant what he said when he said it. Uniting and stabilizing the Arab world is ctritcal for world peace. I believe that was the President's goal all along and it is why I voted for him. As far as what he has inherited in terms of foriegn relations, I believe that if there is anyone who can figure it all out, and possibly fix it--he can.

Okay, thanks for the support concerning my perception of the futility of some of my posts.. you're right, I can take some comfort in the idea that perhaps I am adding fuel to the fire for some other liberals who are fighting the good fight. I'd still write even if I were sure that there was no point :)



Consumers should be morally driven. They could change the market, and capitalism itself, by making the right choices. On my own, I don't make a dent. I live by my conscience. It's the only way that I can stand the rest of myself. You've stimulated a story idea.. I might have to go write again somewhere :P

No no not lame at all or futile - at the very least it helps build an arsenal of knowledge among those who think alike to use in any debates that might arise in the future. And it exercises your brain.

Id play devils advocate more often but sometimes its just too stupid.



I work retail so this I know - consumers are not morally driven - they are financially driven. I can't say I am much better but I at least try and pay attention to where things are being made and what companies can claim to be environmental responsible and care for their workers etc. But generally, people want cheap stuff and thats what countries like China can provide.

It's a given to some of us..

We don't all see things as they really are, so I felt that it was my lame duty (as it often seems to be :P) to try and spread reason to others. It never has had the effect that I want, though.. Like most discussions, blogs, whatever, the people who pay attention are of the same mindset, and those who ignore never take note. Convincing others is tough enough, nevermind having the opposition acknowledging my points and maybe challenging me. Ah well.. I still like writing, even if it is futile :)



You're right, it's all about the $$.. Human rights in China can take a backseat. As long as they keep providing Wal-Mart with 90% of their inventory. Consumers are making this choice, and then complaining about the socioeconomic results. Laughable, if it weren't so tragic.

I thought it was a given that governments are fundamentally self serving. It always comes down to dollar signs at the end of the day.

Its like a business - the big boss tells you he cares about you as in individual, that they are there to help and support your needs but at the end of the day they want to make money.

I saw some news clips of Obama meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao - same thing. Human rights issues in China are only an issue where they interact with American interests and other peoples suffering will be played on or dumbed down to serve those interests.