US plans to use Saudi Arabia to arm rebels in Libya.

Jimmy Garlic

Looks like Obama wants Saudi Arabia to supply weapons to the rebels in Libya so the US can deny involvement. Just goes to show that the US is very selective about what tyrants it gets outraged about, Saudi Arabia is every bit as oppressive and tyrannical as Gaddafis Libya (if not more so).. There is a bigger game being played here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-2234227.html

I wonder if the US will condemn Saudi Arabia like they condemned Libya when they come down hard on the inevitable protests that will happen there.. Protests are kicking off there already and there is a really big protest planned for March 13th. Will the US call for "democracy" and the removal of the House of Saud?. Will pigs fly?.

Denerick

Why are you so outraged? I can sum up western diplomacy over the past 100 years: 'I mightn't approve of your murders and massacres, but can I have some of your lovely oil please?'

If you can devise a car engine that doesn't leave us dependant upon petroleum you may be allowed to indulge in shocked Victorian righteousness. If you choose not to use any motorised vehicle of any kind or heat your home with any fossil fuel produced in that region then you can rant and rave all you like. Believe me, if the US where to embargo the middle east tomorrow the outcry and decline in living standards would be revolutionary, and would probably lead to the fall of the American Republic. A little perspective, please.

We were always screwed when God decided to put the holy land of three major religions and most of the worlds oil source in a ****hole called 'The Middle East'.

Jimmy Garlic

Denerick wrote: »

If you can devise a car engine that doesn't leave us dependant upon petroleum you may be allowed to indulge in shocked Victorian righteousness. If you choose not to use any motorised vehicle of any kind or heat your home with any fossil fuel produced in that region then you can rant and rave all you like. Believe me, if the US where to embargo the middle east tomorrow the outcry and decline in living standards would be revolutionary, and would probably lead to the fall of the American Republic. A little perspective, please.

The US wants hegemony in the middle east and tyrants they can keep under their thumb. Oil is secondary to that, the situation is a lot more complicated than just wanting oil. Should we all STFU just because we drive cars?. Should US malevolence in the middle east be viewed through rose tinted glasses for the same reason?. US dishonesty and hypocrisy knows no bounds, we should all be disgusted by that and their faux concern for ordinary people caught up in the middle east mess that they helped to create in the first place.

Denerick

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The US wants hegemony in the middle east and tyrants they can keep under their thumb. Oil is secondary to that, the situation is a lot more complicated than just wanting oil. Should we all STFU just because we drive cars?. Should US malevolence in the middle east be viewed through rose tinted glasses for the same reason?. US dishonesty and hypocrisy knows no bounds, we should all be disgusted by that and their faux concern for ordinary people caught up in the middle east mess that they helped to create in the first place.

No nation wants power for the sheer sake of it. The US is not Orwellian, everything is not centrally controlled in an office in Washington, despite the protestations of conspiracy theorists. The plain truth is that the western world has an economy built on an addiction to oil. Without it our societies would simply cease to effectively operate. Ask your father about the oil crises of the 70s. Politicians are never popular when the cost of filling up your car maxes out your credit card.

Overheal

No western nations can be orwellian now, really. the Orwell model never anticipated the Internet. It's a model that would only still work in countries which employ strong measures of control and censorship on it. The Orwell model strongly banked on a central government controling the entire flow of information with the ability to even alter past information.

Einhard

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The US wants hegemony in the middle east and tyrants they can keep under their thumb. Oil is secondary to that, the situation is a lot more complicated than just wanting oil.

Eh, so what exactly is the motive for their supposed desire for hegemony? If it's not for oil, why doesn't the US seek to exercise a similar hegemony in, oh I don't know, the Federated States of Micronesia?

Should we all STFU just because we drive cars?. Should US malevolence in the middle east be viewed through rose tinted glasses for the same reason?.

I don't know if I'd call it malevolence; more a dealing with the situation as one finds it. From the US point of view, liberal democracies provide far more stable allies than capricious dictatorships. But that's not what exists in the Middle East. And, as with the EU, and to a greater extent, China and Russia, America deals with the reality as it finds it on the ground.

US dishonesty and hypocrisy knows no bounds, we should all be disgusted by that and their faux concern for ordinary people caught up in the middle east mess that they helped to create in the first place.

The notion that the autocracies of the ME are sustained solely through US aid, or that they would not be viable without US backing displays a fundamental ignorance of reality. The US did not prop up Mubarak, any more than Syria or Gadaffi depended on US assistance. They dealt with the reality as they found it, and through that gained some measure of influence. Indeed, many commentators, both Western and otherwise, have suggested that the restraint of the Egyptian military was partly a result of their close ties with the US.

If the US and the West had cut all links with such autocracies, they, like the North Koreans and the Burmese, would have carried on regardless. The higher echelons of the government would barely have noticed, and the military would not have suffered. Instead, the people would have borne the brunt of any economic privations. Furthermore, the suplly of oil and other resources would have been drastically diminished, and the West would have had no influence over the actions of the regimes.

I know that your course of action sounds great in theory, but how exactly does the sceanario above help anyone, and how would your frankly naive prescriptions have resulted in a more stable, democratic Middle East?

I'd note also that the US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. ATM, the LIbyan provisional authority are requesting US intervention, and the Americans are getting criticism for not standing up for human rights. And yet, were they to intervene as the Libyans desire, people like you would beat up on them for hypocrisy and double dealing.

Black Swan

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Looks like Obama wants Saudi Arabia to supply weapons to the rebels in Libya so the US can deny involvement.

I read the news article by Robert Fisk of the Independent cited in the OP, but failed to find any authoritative sources that supported his claims when disclosing the "Secret." According to whom was Obama or the US endorsing (or otherwise supporting) the supply of weapons to rebels in Libya through Saudi Arabia?

Fisk's claims may be valid, but then again I would exercise caution when accepting his claims without clearly defined sources; otherwise, this thread may be better placed in the conspiracy theory genre?

His source could be a reliable undisclosed "Deep Throat" of the Richard Nixon Watergate Era, or it could be an unreliable "Remember the Maine" incident, or a more recent yellow cakes and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction claims too?

Anyone find reliable sources to back up Fisk's claims of US involvement using Saudi Arabia as a weapons distribution proxy to Libya?

Michaelie

Obama is ordinary murderer who does not love Arabs.

metrovelvet

How can the US deny involvement at this stage? 100 missiles day one pretty much knocks that pretense on the head.

I don't understand how people on these boards are sympathetic to this 'police action' but hated Bush for Iraq.

Even outspoken liberals like Michael Moore and Farrakhan are calling Obama a war president for this.

Libya is not a source of oil for the US so Im not buying the oil motive here.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Farrakhan... a liberal?

phosphate

Hilary Clinton is visiting Egypt and Tunisia to try and buy the future governments with $60 million.

Democracy, US style.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

why does that matter?
if he makes good points they can be read and argued on their own merit, although that would be kinda rare for a conspiracy theorist regular it can happen.

Michaelie

metrovelvet wrote: »

H

I don't understand how people on these boards are sympathetic to this 'police action' but hated Bush for Iraq.

America - well done! It is necessary to polish muzzles to Arabs that the prices for gasoline became cheaper!

Denerick

Michaelie wrote: »

America - well done! It is necessary to polish muzzles to Arabs that the prices for gasoline became cheaper!

Have you ever encountered the concepts of reason or logical deduction? For example, the Iraq war was supposedly about oil, yet prices have been consistently high for the last decade. Libya is a comparatively tiny producer of oil, but even so, have a dictator like Gadaffi in charge would guarantee production better than a parliamentary democracy which may just decide to turn off the taps... for a 'laugh'. Point is we don't know who the revolutionaries are, they could turn out to be Islamist radicals (I doubt it) but the underlying fact remains that the easiest thing the west could have done would have been to ignore this all, allow Gadaffi to fight his war, allow him to win, and resume business as normal.

But no, do indulge yourself with absence of thought and pathetic anti war sloganeering. Leave the thinking to the big boys. :rolleyes:

Michaelie

Denerick wrote: »

Leave the thinking to the big boys. :rolleyes:

We will continue to drink beer and to go to night clubs while America bombs Libya and there people die. And for this purpose cheap gasoline is necessary to us.
I think......

Denerick

Michaelie wrote: »

We will continue to drink beer and to go to night clubs while America bombs Libya and there people die. And for this purpose cheap gasoline is necessary to us.
I think......

Yet you haven't explained, in any way really, what your issue is. It can't be both ways. Either America installs and protects evil tyrants to protect its own interests or America deposes good people with only the interests of their nation at heart. Which is it?

metrovelvet

Michaelie wrote: »

We will continue to drink beer and to go to night clubs while America bombs Libya and there people die. And for this purpose cheap gasoline is necessary to us.
I think......

Its all very convenient to be self riteous about oil, but without it we will all starve and die and no one will be going anywhere because the price of beer will go through the roof because of the costs of delivering it.

RichieC

Einhard wrote: »

Eh, so what exactly is the motive for their supposed desire for hegemony? If it's not for oil, why doesn't the US seek to exercise a similar hegemony in, oh I don't know, the Federated States of Micronesia?

Keeping the people down so their states can never rise to power that can compete with the US.

Michaelie

Denerick wrote: »

Yet you haven't explained, in any way really, what your issue is.

I think that Americans are peaceful nations. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya..............., etc. Hitler was only dreaming this way, but has died early.

Overheal

Michaelie wrote: »

I think that Americans are peaceful nations. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya..............., etc. Hitler was only dreaming this way, but has died early.

You know it's literally been.. Months, since I last saw Godwin's coefficient in action. Well done.

Did we seek to own Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya? Make them part of a "Reich" of sorts? Did we seek to systematically kill anyone who did not live up to our genetic standards of superhumanity?

No I rather thought not. :rolleyes:

Michaelie

Overheal wrote: »

Did we seek to own Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya? Make them part of a "Reich" of sorts? Did we seek to systematically kill anyone who did not live up to our genetic standards of superhumanity?

No I rather thought not. :rolleyes:

Certainly not! We want only peace! And each Arabian village has had few American McDonald's. We have killed people already so much that Hitler with his naive "Reich" theory can take a rest.

Overheal

I've never heard a McDonalds Doctrine for going to war. Care to enlighten us?

Denerick

Overheal wrote: »

I've never heard a McDonalds Doctrine for going to war. Care to enlighten us?

We were too preoccupied with communists, nazi's, Islamofascists, liberals, conservatives, capitalists, homosexuals... all along we were ignoring the true evil:

Michaelie

Overheal wrote: »

I've never heard a McDonalds Doctrine for going to war. Care to enlighten us?

McDonalds Doctrine means that the people are like a big pipe throughout which the goods fly.
As faster speed as more goods! The third world should leave a board (they serve us).

Overheal

in english

Michaelie

Overheal wrote: »

in english

no comment

Denerick

Crude Stalinist propaganda.

Nice.

Good to know where you actually stand.

Michaelie

Denerick wrote: »

Crude Stalinist propaganda.

Nice.

Good to know where you actually stand.

Stalin, Hitler, Bush, Obama - grasses from one evil field. Is it not?

Denerick

Michaelie wrote: »

Stalin, Hitler, Bush, Obama - grasses from one evil field. Is it not?

Does it comfort you to think that every political leader ever is without exception evil and megalomaniacal?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I've never heard a McDonalds Doctrine for going to war. Care to enlighten us?

Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions imposed on the people overrun. Yummmmm

Michaelie

Denerick wrote: »

Does it comfort you to think that every political leader ever is without exception evil and megalomaniacal?

Not it doesn't. But how do you think is it possible to save up the capital and not to lose innocence on the same time? Or someone still trust in the kind king?

Overheal

So now it's a McDonalds Monarhcy?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

So now it's a McDonalds Monarhcy?

(Ahhhh... I think that's Burger King.)

Overheal

Michaelie

We should not be shy taking away from Arabs, Africans, Russians, their Oil!

SamHarris

Michaelie wrote: »

We will continue to drink beer and to go to night clubs while America bombs Libya and there people die. And for this purpose cheap gasoline is necessary to us.
I think......

I refuse to believe people are against intervention on the grounds that people may get hurt, given what was happening before intervention. What you care about is that the Middle East has the illusion that they alone control their own destiny, regardless if that destiny in the last 100 years has been nothing but repression, cultural stagnation, technological backwardness and religious intolerance.

A simple thought experiment is often enough to ascertain whether your opinion on a subject is entirely based on preconceptions. For example, if the US has vetoed the UN resolution on Libya the other day, would you now be praising them for their defence of Arab soverignity, or would you be one of the many people inevitably on this forum decrying US hypocrisy and support of a murderous dictator?

SamHarris

Michaelie wrote: »

We should not be shy taking away from Arabs, Africans, Russians, their Oil!

Your right, not when they sell it. Considering it is the only thing much of the Arab world has to sell/develop, it would be very interesting to see exactly how they would get on without the oiltrade. I remind you 90% plus of the GDP of much of the Arab world originates from oil. Russia and (some of) Africa is similarly dependant.

Memnoch

SamHarris wrote: »

I refuse to believe people are against intervention on the grounds that people may get hurt, given what was happening before intervention. What you care about is that the Middle East has the illusion that they alone control their own destiny, regardless if that destiny in the last 100 years has been nothing but repression, cultural stagnation, technological backwardness and religious intolerance.

A simple thought experiment is often enough to ascertain whether your opinion on a subject is entirely based on preconceptions. For example, if the US has vetoed the UN resolution on Libya the other day, would you now be praising them for their defence of Arab soverignity, or would you be one of the many people inevitably on this forum decrying US hypocrisy and support of a murderous dictator?

This is a good point that actually misses the core of the issue, which is this:

While it may be the same set of people decrying intervention on the one hand and non-intervention on the other, the difficulty I (and perhaps others with such objections) have is not with the acts themselves rather, whether there is intervention or not, the aim always seems to be to subvert the soverignty of the people's concerned (note I used the word people rather than government), usually with strategically important locations or natural resources in play.

Whether this comes in the form of ousting repressive dictators or supplying them with arms.

The goal behind these complaints is to, perhaps naively, seek transparency, but of course, governments aren't going to admit that they are killing people and invading other countries to enrich major multiantional corporations in the oil and weapon's trade or to establish strategic beach head. The whole, saving lives and delivering freedom and democracy mantra plays out much better with us uninitiated plebs.

However, it is their incosistancy of both action and rhethoric that illuminates the truth of their motivations.

The following might be considered conspiracy theory stuff:

Why did the uprising in Libya turn more violent than others? Where did a rebel army suddenly appear from? My personal theory is that western governments/agencies armed these people and supported them, picked this as the time for insurrection, riding on popular sentiment and then when the native regime reacted as it was expected to to hold on to power, they intervene with full UN sanction. Quite brilliant really.

One thing is for sure. No one is building a rebel army in Baharin where the majority of the population are oppressed by a minority faction (northern ireland anyone?)

Some yearning for freedom is more valuable than other.

SamHarris

Memnoch wrote: »

This is a good point that actually misses the core of the issue, which is this:

While it may be the same set of people decrying intervention on the one hand and non-intervention on the other, the difficulty I (and perhaps others with such objections) have is not with the acts themselves rather, whether there is intervention or not, the aim always seems to be to subvert the soverignty of the people's concerned (note I used the word people rather than government), usually with strategically important locations or natural resources in play.

Whether this comes in the form of ousting repressive dictators or supplying them with arms.

The goal behind these complaints is to, perhaps naively, seek transparency, but of course, governments aren't going to admit that they are killing people and invading other countries to enrich major multiantional corporations in the oil and weapon's trade or to establish strategic beach head. The whole, saving lives and delivering freedom and democracy mantra plays out much better with us uninitiated plebs.

However, it is their incosistancy of both action and rhethoric that illuminates the truth of their motivations.

The following might be considered conspiracy theory stuff:

Why did the uprising in Libya turn more violent than others? Where did a rebel army suddenly appear from? My personal theory is that western governments/agencies armed these people and supported them, picked this as the time for insurrection, riding on popular sentiment and then when the native regime reacted as it was expected to to hold on to power, they intervene with full UN sanction. Quite brilliant really.

One thing is for sure. No one is building a rebel army in Baharin where the majority of the population are oppressed by a minority faction (northern ireland anyone?)

Some yearning for freedom is more valuable than other.

I have no doubt that more factors into a descision to intervene than merely "freedom and democracy" however - I fail to see how that should matter to a great extent. If Rwanda had of been an oil hub, and Western forces had intervened during the genocide, the act of ending the genocide is still commendable. Countries have interests EVERYWHERE and no descision should be made on purely moral basis, or on a purely rescourcecentric basis. It would be childish to do either.

It is interesting that the West often comes under fire from the same people for 1. Supporting a dictator. 2./ supplying rebels with arms against a dictator. 3./ trading with a a dictator 4./ Not trading with a dictator (Cuba). Very easily I can make alot of people subscribe to all of these views, in different scenarios, all the whilst decrying "Western Hypocrisy". Perhaps the world is just more complicated than they wish it was?

Your definition of "Soverignty" in this instance takes no account of power or ability - hate to use the same example twice but the Rwanda genocide was essentially an internal issue. Yes the soverignty of those being slaughtered, and those doing the slaughtering would be infringed upon if an international force intervened, but would you still disagree with the action? It is not the be all and end all, particularly if there is a dictator in power for 40 years, when "the people" are hardly soverign, rather Gaddafi "Is the state". I do not disagree with you, merely arguing that in some cases (one could argue alot of cases) soverignty takes a back seat to human decency.

I do not subscirbe to the idea that "because we do not always act, we should never act" and I find it sad that alot of the people I know use that argument as though it establishes their moral superiority.

Memnoch

SamHarris wrote: »

I have no doubt that more factors into a descision to intervene than merely "freedom and democracy" however - I fail to see how that should matter to a great extent. If Rwanda had of been an oil hub, and Western forces had intervened during the genocide, the act of ending the genocide is still commendable. Countries have interests EVERYWHERE and no descision should be made on purely moral basis, or on a purely rescourcecentric basis. It would be childish to do either.

It is interesting that the West often comes under fire from the same people for 1. Supporting a dictator. 2./ supplying rebels with arms against a dictator. 3./ trading with a a dictator 4./ Not trading with a dictator (Cuba). Very easily I can make alot of people subscribe to all of these views, in different scenarios, all the whilst decrying "Western Hypocrisy". Perhaps the world is just more complicated than they wish it was?

Your definition of "Soverignty" in this instance takes no account of power or ability - hate to use the same example twice but the Rwanda genocide was essentially an internal issue. Yes the soverignty of those being slaughtered, and those doing the slaughtering would be infringed upon if an international force intervened, but would you still disagree with the action? It is not the be all and end all, particularly if there is a dictator in power for 40 years, when "the people" are hardly soverign, rather Gaddafi "Is the state". I do not disagree with you, merely arguing that in some cases (one could argue alot of cases) soverignty takes a back seat to human decency.

I do not subscirbe to the idea that "because we do not always act, we should never act" and I find it sad that alot of the people I know use that argument as though it establishes their moral superiority.

I think what people might have a problem with and what I certainly have a problem with is the idea of plunder.

I.E. the use of power or superiority of power to oppress others and take what is theirs or to derive personal benefit and wealth from oppressing others. And when people talk about 'Western Hypocrisy,' this is what they are referring to. I.E. the only reason the West engages is in its own interests (or that of multinational mega corporations to which elected representatives seem to be beholden.)

You talk about actions as being various and several:

1. Supporting a dictator. 2./ supplying rebels with arms against a dictator. 3./ trading with a a dictator 4./ Not trading with a dictator (Cuba).

I would argue they are not. The action is always the same, to deny people their freedom and right in order to profit. The methods by which this principle action is executed are various, some of which you've pointed out.

The only thing that is different is the rhethoric which in our time is always about helping others when the actual goal is always the opposite. And that really is where the hypocrisy lies.

I think it is you who are being naieve. I (we) are simply calling a spade a spade and an exploiter and plunderer, happy to sacrifice human life for their own benefit an exploiter and plunderer, happy to sacrifice human life for their own benefit.

If anything, feel free to accuse me of being overly cynical, which perhaps, I am.

SamHarris

Memnoch wrote: »

I think what people might have a problem with and what I certainly have a problem with is the idea of plunder.

I.E. the use of power or superiority of power to oppress others and take what is theirs or to derive personal benefit and wealth from oppressing others. And when people talk about 'Western Hypocrisy,' this is what they are referring to. I.E. the only reason the West engages is in its own interests (or that of multinational mega corporations to which elected representatives seem to be beholden.)

You talk about actions as being various and several:



I would argue they are not. The action is always the same, to deny people their freedom and right in order to profit. The methods by which this principle action is executed are various, some of which you've pointed out.

The only thing that is different is the rhethoric which in our time is always about helping others when the actual goal is always the opposite. And that really is where the hypocrisy lies.

I think it is you who are being naieve. I (we) are simply calling a spade a spade and an exploiter and plunderer, happy to sacrifice human life for their own benefit an exploiter and plunderer, happy to sacrifice human life for their own benefit.

If anything, feel free to accuse me of being overly cynical, which perhaps, I am.

I would argue the goal is always the same too - the furtherance of our own agenda. Which is exactly what a government is designed and ment to do. I do not see, and do not wish to see democratic governments in the non Western world seeking to better the lives of Western citizens at the expense of their own people.

Yes Western nations have lots of interests - one of them being the exportation of our values and it is (and should be) lower on the list that things like national security, the well being of our own people and the security of a way of life (depressingly, that means oil).


So what the argument usually breaks down to is a criticism of the efficacy of the Western governments, not a repudiation of all governmetns looking out for their own interests.

The fact that their is clear hypocrisy in the thoughts of individuals who criticise organistions of millions of hypocrisy is laughable.

I do take your point - govs look out for themselves, Western nations are powerful and therefore better at it, how else would you have it, from a real politik perspective?

Memnoch

SamHarris wrote: »

I would argue the goal is always the same too - the furtherance of our own agenda. Which is exactly what a government is designed and ment to do. I do not see, and do not wish to see democratic governments in the non Western world seeking to better the lives of Western citizens at the expense of their own people.

Yes Western nations have lots of interests - one of them being the exportation of our values and it is (and should be) lower on the list that things like national security, the well being of our own people and the security of a way of life (depressingly, that means oil).


So what the argument usually breaks down to is a criticism of the efficacy of the Western governments, not a repudiation of all governmetns looking out for their own interests.

The fact that their is clear hypocrisy in the thoughts of individuals who criticise organistions of millions of hypocrisy is laughable.

I do take your point - govs look out for themselves, Western nations are powerful and therefore better at it, how else would you have it, from a real politik perspective?

That's just it. I don't really care about the real politiks of it. Though I am very AWARE of what the real politik is.

Also, you're wrong about the role of government on at least one and probably two counts:

If our government/elected reps told us that they were invading country X in order to secure strategic resources and were killing innocent people in the process or causing instability in an already volatile region for our enrichment/benefit, it might not be so well received.

I also don't buy the argument that this is necessarily for 'our benefit.' For the benefit of incredibly wealthy multi-national, megacorporations probably, but ours? I remain unconvinced.

The question is of hypocrisy isn't it? Claiming the moral high ground while acting in a base and exploitative manner.

Being aware of the real politik does not mean I (or anyone else) should not point out the moral repugnance (or indeed hypocrisy) at play.

Memnoch

P.S. Just wanted to add:

How much did the average American citizen benefit from the Invasion of Iraq, for example?

A lot of wealthy people and companies got a LOT wealthier, but this came at severe cost to the American Taxpayer.

How many hundreds of billions and lost American lives. I'd argue Americans would have benefited a lot more if that same money was invested in healthcare, education and national infrastructure. Like I said, I remain totally unconvinced that these actions are pursuing the agenda you describe i.e. for "our" benefit.

Michaelie

Memnoch wrote: »

P.S. Just wanted to add:

How much did the average American citizen benefit from the Invasion of Iraq, for example?

Here is the answer ...

SamHarris

Memnoch wrote: »

P.S. Just wanted to add:

How much did the average American citizen benefit from the Invasion of Iraq, for example?

A lot of wealthy people and companies got a LOT wealthier, but this came at severe cost to the American Taxpayer.

How many hundreds of billions and lost American lives. I'd argue Americans would have benefited a lot more if that same money was invested in healthcare, education and national infrastructure. Like I said, I remain totally unconvinced that these actions are pursuing the agenda you describe i.e. for "our" benefit.

I did not say every decision is to benefit their own people, I said it should be a major factor in the EVERY decision making process.

With this in mind, every time a local dictator is slaughtering his people one of the factors (along with the intesnsity and likely curve of the slaughter) which should be taken into account is potential benefit to the people the government who may intervene represent.

That the people (who are intervening) may eventually benefit through trade, be it of natural rescources are whatever does not instantly make the intervention some morally repugnant imposition on a weaker nation. That is often the argument of the left.

Further, that it is done on a case by case basis and not on some sort of base "moral" law, whatever that may be, is to me a good thing. I refute that every revolt in every country should equally be supported/not supported by the West, or none at all with no regard for the potential impact on their own citizens, or the intensity of the opression/ uprising.

If you believe it should be, and that the Wests failure to do so means all of it's interventions, regardless of the facts pretaining to the situation at the time are now morally spurious I really feel that type of thinking rests in a world of perfect objectivity.

I did not and do not support the invasion of Iraq, just to say.

I do not expect them to say "Well we are going in now both to help these civilians from being slaughtered, and to protect a potential oil market in the next decade or so" - I do expect them to be very aware of the cost/benefit analysis of the intervention to it's own people.

That you are criticising them for not giving, say in a speech, a full breakdown of the reasons for this intervention, and why other similiar situations did not qualify you are not really leveling a criticism at Western governments, you are leveling a criticism at every government, all over the world since they began. Perhaps even all other organistations that depend on peoples participation.

Memnoch

SamHarris wrote: »

I did not say every decision is to benefit their own people, I said it should be a major factor in the EVERY decision making process.

I see no evidence that this is the case where foreign intervention of the last couple of decades are concerned. I also disagree with your premise. It is wrong to use Miltary/Economic might to enrich yourself at the expense of others and I'm sure the majority of the western electorate would agree with this sentiment. In a democracy the government that is elected is supposed to represent the sentiment of the electorate.

With this in mind, every time a local dictator is slaughtering his people one of the factors (along with the intesnsity and likely curve of the slaughter) which should be taken into account is potential benefit to the people the government who may intervene represent.

That the people (who are intervening) may eventually benefit through trade, be it of natural rescources are whatever does not instantly make the intervention some morally repugnant imposition on a weaker nation. That is often the argument of the left.

Further, that it is done on a case by case basis and not on some sort of base "moral" law, whatever that may be, is to me a good thing. I refute that every revolt in every country should equally be supported/not supported by the West, or none at all with no regard for the potential impact on their own citizens, or the intensity of the opression/ uprising.

You're strawmanning and avoiding the point that I made.

I'm not concerned with the specific method of intervention. Be it liberation or support.

My concern is that the pattern, which seems clear to me, is to subjugate and exploit people for the benefit of persons 'unknown.' It is this that I want to change and want addressed

Also I'm not 'the left.' I'm a poster on boards. If you want to argue with 'the left,' feel free to go find them.

If you believe it should be, and that the Wests failure to do so means all of it's interventions, regardless of the facts pretaining to the situation at the time are now morally spurious I really feel that type of thinking rests in a world of perfect objectivity.

I've stated both in my last post as well as here what I believe it should be. Why don't you respond to that rather than telling me what I'm supposed to believe.

I do not expect them to say "Well we are going in now both to help these civilians from being slaughtered, and to protect a potential oil market in the next decade or so" - I do expect them to be very aware of the cost/benefit analysis of the intervention to it's own people.

That you are criticising them for not giving, say in a speech, a full breakdown of the reasons for this intervention, and why other similiar situations did not qualify you are not really leveling a criticism at Western governments, you are leveling a criticism at every government, all over the world since they began. Perhaps even all other organistations that depend on peoples participation.

You can expect whatever the hell you want. I expect the people I vote for to not go around dropping bombs on innocent people and supporting dictators so that their rich buddies can get even richer.

I don't need to know the minute detail of every decision. But if they are making the decision to, for example, spend hundreds of billions and the lives of our soldiers in a war, where innocent people are going to be killed, then I expect to be told honestly, why this is necessary so I can decide who to vote or not vote for next time around.

Also, let's not step around the issue that a lot of these actions if examined in the truth of cold facts would come under war crimes/crimes against humanity and of course these criminals don't want to be held accountable for that.

Don't bring in other governments, that's whataboutry. We are talking about western hypocrisy. Stick to the debate. I don't care what other governments do/don't do since we aren't debating their actions. Also last I checked, other governments aren't invading/supporting dictators. And those that are I criticize in the strongest possible terms.

If I had defended some OTHER government for intervening by using their military force or whatever, then you can validly show an inconsistancy in my argument. But I didn't.

Michaelie

I have received a warning at boards.ie.