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

Being the world's superpower is not an easy task. The current folks in charge of the country are doing a good job of knocking us down to the level of others. We'll see how that all works out for the "others" in the end. I'm sure they'll all blame America no matter what happens so have at it. I guess getting rid of Hitler was a bad move too. Shoulda just let him take over all of Europe and his muslim allies have all of Africa and see how life would be for them all today.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I wonder what the body count would have been had Israel, Egypt and or Jordon and possibly others in the region had had an all out war?

Seems to me that many here fail to realize that a few Billion here and a few Billion there was small potatoes when compared to what a full scale war in the region would have cost in both terms of Human life and lack of commerce, say through the canal...

reply to post by Johnze


I know you were buddy, that's why I tossed it back.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


The peace of Westphalia is a joke

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.

Why would Brazil not be the economy it is today?

Why would the Panama Canal have been a mess, considering the influence China currently has on it now.

And how do you you make the distinction that, the Soviets were ideologues yet, somehow the U.S were not, considering the extent to which they have actualy gone to keep what they believe to be security and stability?

reply to post by Johnze


Can you expound upon why you think Westphalia was a joke? It guided global foreign policy until the end of World War 2.

Why would Brazil not be the nation it is today if under former Soviet oppression? Ask North Korea and Cuba. Even East Germany has not recovered from former Soviet oppression. Economically and commercially it is far behind the Western half of Germany.

China has influence over the canal, but we have a interdepenency with them. We did not with the Soviets. Neither of us needed each other for anything. Had we lost control of the canal to the Soviets it would have caused great conflict. China on the other hand is part of the current global system and there are checks and balances.

Soviet ideology wasn't based on pragmatic or real world concepts, but intellectual ideas with little basis in reality. Essentially it was a religion.

Realpolitik is about real world factors and realistic goals. Its not about Utopia or "Immanentizing the Eschaton". Keep in mind what is said and what is done are two totally different things.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

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

This is fine, because dictators are much cheaper to deal with. This is all about a budget crises, right? Predictability cost less to maintenance.

It doesn't matter much anyway. DC doesn't have any more cash. It's the UN that has already started to pay out the incentives. What we're seeing already is the migration of responsibility - so the cards are being shuffled.

I have to laugh at all this NWO garbage - wrong rabbit hole. More appropriately, it is called the New World Bank. Government policies always funnel out of the banking system. It will be no different under a global institution or reserve.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

Can you expound upon why you think Westphalia was a joke? It guided global foreign policy until the end of World War 2.

History has pretty much ran contrary to the Westphalian principle. The Americas saw rapid exploitation and colonisation as did Africa and Central Asia, we saw the formation of commerical entities such as The East India Company and ultimatly competing empires i.e Britain and Germany started what was the most horrifying industrial conflict the world will likely ever witness. Defining and legalising vasselage in order to found a system in which it may exist is all very well, however adhereing to the tenants of it is something entirely different.

Why would Brazil not be the nation it is today if under former Soviet oppression? Ask North Korea and Cuba. Even East Germany has not recovered from former Soviet oppression. Economically and commercially it is far behind the Western half of Germany.

I would much rather ask America and i would ask them, why have you America kept in place your criminal economic embargos of Cuba?, do you think America this may somehow be having an impact on there economy in a negative way?[i imagine it would] as im pretty sure the economic woes of Cuba is not "Communism". Socialism has never been given the chance to rise and fall on its own merits, America has never given it the chance.

North Korea and East Germany are two entirely different subjects[though not unrelated mind you] you just happen to be tarring with the same brush im affraid.

Again i will just ask why Brazil would not be the economy it is today under Soviet control?. Perhaps it would have something to do with rampant U.S sponserd terrorism, espionage and economic warfare???

Soviet ideology wasn't based on pragmatic or real world concepts, but intellectual ideas with little basis in reality. Essentially it was a religion

You mean kinda of like when Reagen reffered to his Contra's as the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers"

Look, if your just going to spout anti soviet rhetoric then im wasting my time, I funnily enough like things to be based on reality, not on how you may percieve reality based on your own prejudices thanks very much.

reply to post by Johnze


Interesting perspective....

However speaking of Communists and or giving socialism a chance. What say ye about China? Just a few decades back they butchered 30 to 40 million in the cultural revolution to maintain Mao's little red book ideology yet they have flipped and have gone Capitalists with a socialists twist with little or no outside influence.

I think Tienanmen square scared the crap out of the Chinese powers that be more than they'll like to admit...

reply to post by Johnze


Perceived reality?

The Soviet system failed and Communism is contrary to human nature.

I cannot think of a single post Soviet satellite having a booming economy or a very high standard of living.

Based on your rhetoric, I almost wonder if you would like to see totalitarian communist regimes in Latin America and elsewhere. Do you honestly see communism as a viable alternative?

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Yeah there is one reason why it essentialy failed. Fighting a proxy war with America pretty much bankrupted them. China hasnt failed, funny that isnt it. Infact all that communism jazz seems to have workd out quite well for China so far. By your reasoning there unnatural way of life should have imploded decades ago, yet there they are, having an American president bow like a bitch to beg for money lol.

You simply must understand why these government rise and fall. And if you keep talking about human rights, if you want to stack up how many dictators Russia have supported compared to say America and if then you want to check between the two government who has essentialy violated more human rights than the other, then be my guest lol. I would rather live under a socialist democracy, supported and backd by the people, than live under a tyranny chosen by Washington.

Oh hell Slayer man, with regards to civil rights, China is evil, evil as hell, but economicaly they seem to be doing not too bad eh. And yes, slowly but sirely China are using capatilism as they see fit, but dont be fooled man, capatilism dont equal freedom and it sure as # dont equal any sort of liberalism from the communist state they enforce on there people

It's hypocritical of America to support a dictator such as Mubarak. America is supposed to be the vanguard of democracy, yet disapproves the Egyptians for wanting a democracy? We should be pushing them to have a democracy, seriously. We would view the citizens of countries being headed by dictators as "oppressed", yet we chastise the Egyptians for wanting a democracy. One occurrence feared to happen from the Egyptians overthrowing the government is that the so-called "Muslim Brotherhood" would win the election. But this is what the Egyptians want, and if we stymie them from applying what we proudly espouse (democracy) then that makes us look like douches.

As Noam Chomsky said

There has been one free election in the Arab world, exactly one really free election—namely, in Palestine, January 2006, carefully monitored, recognized to be free, fair, open and so on. And right after the election, within days, the United States and Israel announced publicly and implemented policies of harsh attack against the Palestinian people to punish them for running a free election. Why? The wrong people won. Elections are just fine, if they come out the way we want them to.

www.democracynow.org...

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.

Hey..it's your tax dollars at work. You wanna ship it to Switzerland courtesy of these guys, who am I to say anything?

reply to post by Johnze


So now you are claiming that China is really communist? China is some bizarre hybrid corporate state, nothing like the USSR. The bureaucrats rule the country like some bizarre feudal corporate state. Marx would have an absolute fit if he saw what China had done, while claiming to be communist. Communism is supposed to be worker's paradise, China is a worker's nightmare.

I never mentioned human rights.

Socialist democracy and communism are two totally different things. Being a social democrat in the USSR was a quick way to get sent to a Gulag. Social democracies are well developed nations and have many rights, the best current examples are the Nordic countries, which also happen to have the highest standards of living on earth.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

I wonder what the body count would have been had Israel, Egypt and or Jordon and possibly others in the region had had an all out war?

Seems to me that many here fail to realize that a few Billion here and a few Billion there was small potatoes when compared to what a full scale war in the region would have cost in both terms of Human life and lack of commerce, say through the canal...

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

That's one way of looking at it.

Here's another: To prevent the possibility of an all out war, the West (collectively) supported the social, cultural and economic repression of tens of millions of people for decades. If you want to take a strict dollars and cents approach, what is the collective economic impact of that action?

I'd be willing to bet it's a lot higher than the cost of potentially losing the Suez for a few months - and given the revenue it generates, it certainly wouldn't be more than that.

A thought that's been occurring to me since the Tunisian protests is that we - collectively in the rich countries of the world - have got quite a lot to answer for these days. Hundreds of millions of people have been denied their basic human rights to negate existential threats - while at the same time creating the ideal conditions for triggers of those threats to flourish.

Sooner or later, all tyrants fall. And once people find out that they can topple a tyrant, it becomes harder to install another. Might be that this time, we're just going to have to lay in the bed we've made.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
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

Tell this BS to many friends who parents have died to dictators. You never lived under a dictatorship thats why you can make any excuses you want. One of my best friends his dad was killed, my aut & uncle needed to go to Europe at time because of regime.

And where you got the idea that these countries would be communists without your beloved "Project Condor"?

Society works around the golden rule, who ever has the gold makes the rule.

Originally posted by blackcube
And where you got the idea that these countries would be communists without your beloved "Project Condor"?

Because that story is how the United States justifies all of it's adventures. Never mind that it is all about making the rich, richer...just tell the the suckers that it's all about saving the world from Communism...Islam...whatever.

I dont know why mubarak needs that 1 billion something dollar per year aid when he is losing about 3billion dollars a year by selling gas to israel at a very low price. Egypt doesn't need america's aid, if they sell gas to israel at the international price they can sustain themselves without any aid

Originally posted by roguehuman
I dont know why mubarak needs that 1 billion something dollar per year aid when he is losing about 3billion dollars a year by selling gas to israel at a very low price. Egypt doesn't need america's aid, if they sell gas to israel at the international price they can sustain themselves without any aid

Too true..
But I guess there's the usual backhanded deal to consider..
Mubarak isn't personally worth Billions for nothing...

But energy expert Ibrahim Zahran, member of the campaign against gas exports, says the gas "was under-priced in the first deal, and continues to be under-priced in the new agreement as well.

"The first deal laid down a price of 1.25 dollars per million British thermal units (BTUs), compared to global prices of about 15 dollars per million BTUs," Zahran told IPS. "Under the new agreement, the price was raised to 1.75 dollars per million BTUs, although international prices remain the same: Russia, for example, currently sells gas to next-door Ukraine at 15 dollars per million BTUs.

"At such vastly reduced prices, Egypt is effectively subsidising Israel," he added.

Watching Aljazeera live - Mabaruk has not gone. Muslim Brotherhood now in dialogue with Vice President and state that no negotiations will commence until Mobaruk has gone.