It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It Ain't Just Mubarak -- 7 of the Worst Dictators the U.S. Is Backing to the Hilt

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
The USA should stop their empire building (let's call it what it is folks) and stop trying to police the world.

It's time that the USA started to look inwards, and solve their own problems.

After all, as your grandmother said, "you can't solve everyone else's problems if you can't take care of #1, yourself".


That would be nice. And doable. IF (big if) the rest of the world left us alone as well. But we've become too big as a target for every nutbag fanatic terrorist group/country/wanna-bes to ever be left alone.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


$8 Billion in US Foreign Aid to Russia

RUSSIA has become the world's top producer of oil, surpassing even Saudi Arabia in 2006 and 2007. In 2007 the value of Russian production was $238 billion even supplying $2.8 billion to the US. Thanks to a near doubling of the world price we can assume that the value of their production for 2008 could end up somewhere between $400 billion and $500 billion. Can we say "Windfall Profits"? Why have we provided over $8 billion in foreign aid (that we, by the way, created out of thin air) to a very wealthy aggressor that has signed arms, nuclear and energy deals with Iran?


This year is already starting to add up...
Making Sense Of U.S. Foreign Aid To Egypt And Elsewhere

You may be surprised to learn that most countries outside of Western Europe, Canada and Australia get foreign aid from the U.S. This year the requested amount for Russia was $68.7 million. For China, it’s $12.9 million. A whopping $647.7 million has been allocated for Nigeria. Even $20 million is set aside for communist Cuba. Again, these figures are the requested amounts for 2011–Congress is still trying to figure out how much to spend during the current fiscal year



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
And you know.. It is interesting.. We had I literally mean WE HAD TO GOTO IRAQ BECAUSE OF EVIL SADDAM!!!!
Interesting that... People are just so god damn stupid sometimes..

Are you sure we are the smartest creatures on this planet?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by babybunnies
The USA should stop their empire building (let's call it what it is folks) and stop trying to police the world.

It's time that the USA started to look inwards, and solve their own problems.

After all, as your grandmother said, "you can't solve everyone else's problems if you can't take care of #1, yourself".


That would be nice. And doable. IF (big if) the rest of the world left us alone as well. But we've become too big as a target for every nutbag fanatic terrorist group/country/wanna-bes to ever be left alone.


I tend to disagree. I think we are a target because we painted a bullseye on our back, not merely because we exist. If we weren't out there letting our corporations rape the world for a profit, people probably would not be upset with us.

And, let's face it, our so-called occupations and peace-keeping missions, etc. are nothing more than a way to force the taxpayers to enrich the military industrial complex.

We have an Air Force and a Navy that, between the two, can reach and touch anyone in a matter of hours. We do not need , for example, 23,000 troops on the SK/NK DMZ. What is the point? So our soldiers can get killed for no good reason if the whacko in NK decides to attack? Good thinking Pentagon. :rolleyes:



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That's a dodgy site Slayer..
None of their figures can be found anywhere else..

Over 1 billion in 2006??? Nah.....



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz

I tend to disagree. I think we are a target because we painted a bullseye on our back, not merely because we exist. If we weren't out there letting our corporations rape the world for a profit, people probably would not be upset with us.


Many countries around the world benefit from these so-called evil corporations. Would you want to see other people, other cultures suffer because we went away


And, let's face it, our so-called occupations and peace-keeping missions, etc. are nothing more than a way to force the taxpayers to enrich the military industrial complex.


And here I thought it was to keep people safe and remind the bad guys that we won't put up with their stuff.


We have an Air Force and a Navy that, between the two, can reach and touch anyone in a matter of hours. We do not need , for example, 23,000 troops on the SK/NK DMZ. What is the point? So our soldiers can get killed for no good reason if the whacko in NK decides to attack? Good thinking Pentagon. :rolleyes:


How about our friends, the South Koreans? Don't they deserve a chance at peace? Or would you just destroy a culture because because they are outside of Americas boarders?
edit on 5-2-2011 by beezzer because: typro



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by DragonTattooz

I tend to disagree. I think we are a target because we painted a bullseye on our back, not merely because we exist. If we weren't out there letting our corporations rape the world for a profit, people probably would not be upset with us.


Many countries around the world benefit from these so-called evil corporations. Would you want to see other people, other cultures suffer because we went away


And, let's face it, our so-called occupations and peace-keeping missions, etc. are nothing more than a way to force the taxpayers to enrich the military industrial complex.


And here I thought it was to keep people safe and remind the bad guys that we won't put up with their stuff.


We have an Air Force and a Navy that, between the two, can reach and touch anyone in a matter of hours. We do not need , for example, 23,000 troops on the SK/NK DMZ. What is the point? So our soldiers can get killed for no good reason if the whacko in NK decides to attack? Good thinking Pentagon. :rolleyes:


How about our friends, the South Koreans? Don't they deserve a chance at peace? Or would you just destroy a culture because because they are outside of Americas boarders?
edit on 5-2-2011 by beezzer because: typro


All I can say is that, based on your responses, propaganda is alive and well and there are definitely people who will believe anything the government says.

Just one thing- If we pulled every one of our troops out of Korea it would not change the dynamics there one iota. Not even a little bit. Do you seriously believe that a few troops is a deterrent to Kim Jong Il? His deterrent is the knowledge that he will be destroyed if he attacks and that has nothing whatsoever to do with troops stationed at the DMZ.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That's a dodgy site Slayer..
None of their figures can be found anywhere else..

Over 1 billion in 2006??? Nah.....



Simply because you may be unaware of just exactly how much money the US has given Russia over the past couple of decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't mean it's not a reality..

In 1994 alone we gave them 2.5 Billion.
1994


Also...

Aid to Russia

The July 1998 IMF bailout of Russia represents an intensification of the very policies that have produced such abuses. The $11.2 billion aid package for 1998, (with another $7.8 billion funds over three years pledged if Russia "stays on track"), is supposed to put an end to Russia's financial crisis. Yet only a very few certain political-economic players--not the population at large, including workers who have gone without wages for months--stand to reap any benefits.


U.S. Assistance for Market Reforms:
Foreign Aid Failures in Russia and the Former Soviet Bloc

The failed $22.6 billion bailout of Russia by the International Monetary Fund in July 1998 only confirmed the flawed nature of the aid-for-reform approach.....

The United States and other donor countries should not continue their dubious aid-for-reform approach if they wish to encourage the development of democracy and true market reform.


edit on 5-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonTattooz
 


Propoganda? Moi?



How so? Please explain. I try to offer another viewpoint and it is disregarded as immediate propoganda? Tell me, explain to me how pulling our corporations out of foreign countries would be a good thing.
Please.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


I agree, and here's a quote from the movie "Bambi" ..."if you can't say anything good about someone else, don't say anything at all."
It may be from a child's Disney movie, but maybe are foreign policy should follow that quote at times.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Hi all. Devils Advocate here.


Have any of you considered that while we have backed real bad guys in the past, it is being done because there is something worse waiting in the wings?
Sure, it'd be nice if we could give the world unicorns and rainbows, but we can't. We can only work with the material given to us. We can only work with the people there now. Change takes time. And as the case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is still true, perhaps taking a step back and looking at the larger picture is needed.

Or we can just bash America.


Thats basically how we operate.

Its a utilitarian method where the end justifies the means. Its often referred to as Realpolitik.

Realpolitik deals with practical real world factors. It isn't bogged down by ideology or philosophy.

It is about the Big Picture. It is about real data from economists and political scientists.

I know people will say thats hypocritical or dishonest, but it doesn't matter. The entire world operates on hypocrisy and dishonesty. All that really matters in the end are results.

The goals are very simple: Stability, Security, Supremacy.

We have to thank Henry Kissinger for "keeping it real" at the White House in the 1970s. Before that we operated on a more ideological level, which allowed Cuba, Korea and Vietnam to happen. Look at the 1970s though, with Operation Condor in Latin America. We fought fire with fire.

Ignoring the world is even worse, thats how you get Hitler.

We have to maintain global stability, security, and supremacy. If we don't, no one else will. If we won't, there will be world war and chaos. Ultimately, it is Chaos that is our biggest enemy.

Its still an evolving and growing science. We learn from our mistakes, the Shah, Saddam, etc. Its not about ideology, so we can adapt and mutate policy as needed. It will be the same for Mubarak. We will adapt and overcome.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Thank you for being more eloquent in your description.

Winston Churchill once said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
The goals are very simple: Stability, Security, Supremacy.

We have to thank Henry Kissinger for "keeping it real" at the White House in the 1970s. Before that we operated on a more ideological level, which allowed Cuba, Korea and Vietnam to happen. Look at the 1970s though, with Operation Condor in Latin America. We fought fire with fire.

Ignoring the world is even worse, thats how you get Hitler.

We have to maintain global stability, security, and supremacy. If we don't, no one else will. If we won't, there will be world war and chaos. Ultimately, it is Chaos that is our biggest enemy.



Great points but many seem to either forget or ignore that reality.

However another way of looking at it is of a fireman, [ World Police - may be very apparent to some others who are more historically savvy ] going round putting out small brush fires instead of ignoring them and letting them grow out of control into major regional/World War conflicts. People in this thread alone have brought up Saddam. Notice how they have not put it back in it's historical context? That was the US/Wests Cold War puppet in the region. The US/West did not know what the Soviets intentions were in Afghanistan at the time. They [Soviets/Red China] had their puppet. North Korea. We took our guy out. The Soviets are gone and China is capitalists Yet North Korea is still standing and is now nuclear armed.


It's all about profits. Corporate greed.
Keep the sweatshops humming/oil flowing and damn the little guy...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
We have to thank Henry Kissinger for "keeping it real" at the White House in the 1970s. Before that we operated on a more ideological level, which allowed Cuba, Korea and Vietnam to happen. Look at the 1970s though, with Operation Condor in Latin America. We fought fire with fire.


What you mean about fire with fire? Because I don't think anyone from these countries (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay) liked the dictators
.
edit on 5/2/11 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
While I totally agree with the US getting out of the realm of backing dictators, I understand as to why it is Making friends with them, only means that we are attacked last.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
America supports only freedom and democracy lol



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze
America supports only freedom and democracy lol



Hey Johnze, long time no see.
Where was that stated in this thread?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Global commerce, markets, trade and industry are definitely factors.

Global interdependence creates, in theory, more stability and security. Industries in developing nations become dependent upon markets in developed countries and vice versa. In essence we all depend on each other. This helps prevent global conflict, in theory.

In order to facilitate global commerce and trade, companies or an Industrial Complex are needed to produce goods and services. At the same time a Financial Complex is required to provide financial capital that fuels the Industrial Complex, which provides goods and services to global markets.

Is there corruption in the system? Yes. Avarice and larceny are inherent flaws in humanity, probably a left over survival trait. So people take advantage of the system. When they do, it introduces chaos into the system. I don't think it will be eliminated, but it must be contained and controlled. Failure to do so will result in collapse of the Complex and global order, meaning global conflict will follow.

There is also criticism of the treatment of developing nations in the system. I would compare the past standards of living in those nations to their modern standards. Sure its not equal to developed countries, but its much better than what they had in the past.

Self sufficient or independent (rogue) nations, in theory represent a threat to global order. They have the potential to disrupt the balance and cause global conflict.

So the system isn't perfect.

The alternative is the Westphalian system and that lead to five world wars.

1. The War of Spanish Succession
2. The Seven Year's War
3. The Napoleonic War
4. The Great War, i.e. World War I
5. World War II

Had we not tried a different way, World War III would without a doubt have happened in the 20th century. The Westphalian system also pushed colonialism and imperialism. Even in it, greed and oppression are still problems. I would say worse, because it is unchecked, e.g. the East India Company.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Hey man, works been.....


Nowhere lol, just thought id slip it in there, seemed liked the thing to do. Was kinda hopin someone would take the bait and laud Americas efforts in promoting freedom on all four corners of the globe. I mean, Obama did get the Nobel Peace Prize didnt he?

Lets just think about that lol.

Nobel Peace Prize.

To an American president, how mental is that?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by blackcube
 


They would have liked the Communist versions even less.

Had Communists taken over South America, Brazil would not have become the rising economy it is today and the Amazon would have been devastated far worse than it is.

At some point it would have threatened the Panama Canal and we would of had a huge mess.

Just keep in mind, things could have been far worse under a Soviet puppet. The Soviets, being ideologues, went far beyond what was necessary to keep security and stability.
edit on 5/2/11 by MikeboydUS because: ideologues



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join