Comments on: Why Western meddling in “Deathistan” needs to end

By: venturen

venturen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:48:52 +0000

It couldn’t be that their religious believe doom them to generations of failure. Institutional crouption…has nothing to do with it. It is all the west’s fault…though they beat and murder their own women and children under a crude “moral” code. Up next the West holds down the African nations whose tribal beliefs have nothing to do with their amoral living. Westerners who arrive in these place are successful, but people like Mugabe are the fault of the west. Why not place blame where it belongs…no different why the Germans are successful and the Belgian’s with dysfunctional and corrupt ways are continuously unsuccessful!

By: iambemused

iambemused — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:15:19 +0000

What a relief – finding a blog and commentary where people can spell.

It’s a tricky proposition, ending participation in an entire slice of the world. It is hard to imagine a way to stop military outcomes unless you do that.

Mind you, a little more honesty on the political scene could be helpful, and might help international folk gain a better understanding of just where the US of A sits in all this. How about a robust discussion at Presidential level, on the value and application of democracy, regime change, parallel societies, energy, power and Oil Wars? When you are the biggest Alpha Male in the group there’s nothing wrong with saying “i see it all like ‘this’, and you may not agree with my decisions but i was elected to make those decisions”. Politically, it may be a form of suicide but it would certainly shake up the global chatfest scene.

As an Australian peeking into (predominantly) US discussion forums, it’s hard not to come away with the impression that all attempts at discussion quickly get diluted into a Republican/Democrat stand-off. Again, the commentary on this blog seems to be different in that regard, and this makes me feel more positive on American intellectualism than i have felt for quite a while.

Apologies for a chatty post. It can be reduced to a suggestion that America cannot ignore its place in the global scene, nor pretend it is not a superpower that has to juggle fiercely competing imperatives. It just needs to be more open on why it does what it does, and take any flak that my fly as a result.

Not that i’m an expert… but i’m just sayin’…

By: alani24

alani24 — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:02:36 +0000

What we are seeing are the seeds of World War 3 sprouting. Deathistan is where empires go to die…..and we have seen this happen over and over again throughout history. It’s amazing how if you got back even further you will observe that even back to the Greeks, Romans, Barbarians, Ottomans etc…..it’s simply the course of history repeating itself.
Einstein said World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones…well just look around you.
If you assume for a second that the so called “allies” of the U.S. or even the members of the so called security council are allied with the U.S. by choice, then you are gravely mistaken. These countries under different circumstances would turn against the U.S. in a heartbeat. The main culprit of our present global design is the great Winston Churchill. The entire middle east and Africa was carved out in London….remember the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916? Think Lawrence of Arabia, General Allenby, Prince Faisal I of Arabia (not Saudi Arabia…and you wonder why the west till this very day have a “close” relationship with the Faisals of Saudi Arabia. While this is not a lesson on history, my point is to remember that none of this is new….empires go to Deathistan to DIE!

By: breezinthru

breezinthru — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:00:50 +0000

Interesting point of view, but from a greedy point of view wouldn’t it have been in America’s interest to allow Gaddafi to wipe out much of his opposition in Libya?

It’s been years since Gaddafi has threatened the West and he was unlikely to do so during the rest of his life. The oil flows. Libya was becoming a popular tourist destination.

The current unrest is a factor in driving the price of oil higher at a time when America’s economy can ill afford increased energy costs. It seems to me that America is trying to shape a Libyan government that is a grateful friend at a time when not taking action might cost more lives than taking action.

It also appears based on the current situation that Middle East autocracies would probably do very little good for their citizens if left to their own devices. The current revolutions in the area seem to be a genuine attempt by the people to improve their own lot in an otherwise hopeless situation.

Nonetheless, your arguments have some merit.

By: Jeff_F_F

Jeff_F_F — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:12:05 +0000

I find the assurances that the Middle East can never find peace, and that Western nations are wasting our time, money, and everyone’s lives to be both sad and ironic. The reasonic seems clear, blood feuds going back centuries, widespread inequality and violations of human rights. Wars such as that between Iran and Iraq, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan cost about a million lives each. What hope can there be for the future? Better to just look the other way while they butcher, burn, poison, and stone each other like they have been for millenia right?

Ironically a bit over half a centry ago it would have been just as clear that Europe was spiraling into a pattern of perpetual bloodshed of ever more massive proportions. The rule of thumb was once a pan-European war once per generation. Yet today Europe is at peace.

How bout tit-for-tat blood feuds? Consider the history of revaunchism that led to WWII. That goes back to the conquest of Prussia by the French under Napoleon in 1806, almost a century and a half before. “Civilized” people have long memories too! Prussia was forced to pay santions afterward, and those sanctions formed the basis for the sanctions placed on the French after Germany defeated France in 1871. These sanctions in turn formed the basis of those placed on Germany in the treaty of Versailles after WWI, which helped set the stage for WWII.

And while the death toll seen in Middle Eastern wars and terrorism may seem shocking to us today, just one battle in WWI killed as many people as either of the two most brutal wars in the Middle East. While those wars cost a million lives a piece, the first world war cost 16 million European lives, and set the stage for world war two which cost 40 million European lives, with the firebombing of cities killing tens of thousands of civilians in a single day. What Middle-Eastern blood feud has spilled such blood?

The peace in Europe today is testimony to the ability of humanity to put behind us the collective harms and insults of generations past no matter how grievous they might have been. If Europe can live in peace today, peace is possible for any people, anywhere.

By: artisticidea

artisticidea — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:53 +0000

Thank you for finally stating what has so often been relegated to “dissident” or “minority” publications on a mainstream news outlet. Major figures on the American Left and Right would concur with you: from Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders to Ron Paul and Grover Norquist. The imperialist war state will impoverish the basis of its own power – as it did the empires of Alexander, Rome, Khan, the Soviet Union and eventually the United States. In our case, it is waged in the name of defense, but any idiot knows that’s just a byline for oil: Iraq 2 being the primary and most obvious example, though this is also the case for Afghanistan (Osama, the boogieman, is STILL not wanted as a suspect for 911, yet Unocal’s pipeline project has proceeded quite smoothly). You mention only the Middle East, but we also must realize that trade interests have motivated illegal and undemocratic regime change coups in Latin America for more than 60 years. The economic benefits of our not-so-covert oil and free trade zone war Imperialism are only distributed to a few in our society, precisely because it is not “we” who desire or direct these efforts: it is the prerogative of the few industrial and commercial forces that stand to gain from them in the short term.

By: breezinthru

breezinthru — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:23:55 +0000

Interesting point of view, but from a greedy point of view wouldn’t it have been in America’s interest to allow Gaddafi to wipe out much of his opposition in Libya?

It’s been years since Gaddafi has threatened the West and he was unlikely to do so during the rest of his life. The oil flows. Libya was becoming a popular tourist destination.

Nonetheless, your arguments have some merit.

By: Kalari1

Kalari1 — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:46:22 +0000

Now gregg, imagine this scenario. A high ranking official of your state is slaughtering the people in your area. This person has gone mad and is doing as he pleases with no reprocussions. The people have started a revolt. The have started to stand up to him. To regain the basic humanitarian rights they deserve. And he being more technologically advanced goes day by day toying with their lives. Would you then not want help? These people are asking for help. Why should we sit back and not protect those who need it when we have the ability to help? If we would give up a little luxury here and there we would not be in this financial whole we are in now and we would be able to do more for these people who have no way to defend themselves. Your local police department didn’t always exist. It was put there to protect you when you needed it. I know the US or the western countries as you name it are not the official police for this planet. But who is? No one. So the UN and the US has stepped up to try to protect those who need it. Maybe one day we can get a World Police Order put in place that would allow the world as a whole to decide what a country can do. We rely to heavily on one another to let tyrants destroy the people they are put into place to protect. Is this battle about oil? I dont know, none of us common folk do. Will we ever know? Maybe. But whether we went in for oil or for the people, as long as we are able to save a few lives of those who are fighting every day to survive and being oppressed then for whatever reason we are there, the outcome will be better for those people. They will have a chance. What comes of that chance is for them to decide.

By: armonid

armonid — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:20:19 +0000

What puzzle me is why UN step on their toes as soon as something does not goes the way the Western Powers would like it to be. The world will be better off without Gadhafi’s type of government, but the reality is, nothing is perfect in this world including the so call democracy. Where these International Zorro’s were when Pinochet was protected by Thatcher’s government against crime of humanity? What about Fujimori from Chile killing his people by thousands? You may say they were fighting again the bad guys; the communists. So, they deserve the support of Zorro to save the world. Same question can be asked about Pol Pot in Cambodia and Marcos in the Philippe and all others. Until UN will be free of manipulation by Western Powers all those Zorro’s will continue to shape the world to their own goods which have nothing to do with democracy. Unfortunately is a word to often use to justify the unjustifiable.

By: goneXC

goneXC — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:17:21 +0000

Easterbrook has some valid points. Where this and other regional conflicts have changed recently is in the communications. It would have taken hard people to ignore the often live pleas for help heard on the news channels. And of course there is the oil. There are plenty of dictators in Africa who make Gadaffi seem almost saintly.