<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/12161087?origin\x3dhttp://kharya.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

arya

Sunday, December 03, 2006

american foreign policy is bullshit



america repeatedly interferes in the affairs of other countries for no good reason, yet when there is a good reason - to prevent a war or mass killings - it does nothing. this behaviour is increasing hatred towards the american government and losing respect for the american people.

there are many reasons given by the american government for its actions - but they are always inconsistent and contradictory when examined more closely:

democracy - china, saudi arabia, egypt and the united arab emirates are much less democratic than iran - yet they are strong allies with the americans and never criticized to the same extent as iran for their lack of democracy.

when the palestinian people democratically elected their own government, america was quick to label it a terrorist organization. members of the palestinian cabinet were even abducted by the israeli military and this was never condemned by america. in lebanon some members of parliament are considered terrorists since america is incapable of seeing the difference between elected politicians and militia who attack civilians.

in 1953 iranians elected mohammad mossadegh as their prime minister. when he led parliament to nationalize the oil industry, the british and american governments plotted and successfully overthrew him in a coup. forty-seven years later madeleine albright admitted to the incident and expressed regret on behalf of the american government.


threatening behaviour - iraq started an eight year war with iran in the 1980s with american blessings but was not allowed to invade kuwait in 1990.

israel has attacked iraqi nuclear sites, repeatedly made incursions into palestinian areas - seizing and occupying territories it does not have rights to - and even attacked lebanon for no good reason.

america has attacked the philippines, panama, dominican republic, cuba, cambodia, vietnam, afghanistan and iraq in the last 110 years. it has also covertly toppled governments in guatemala, iran and nicaragua.

iran has not attacked another country in over 200 years - something that iranians can be proud of!


weapons - india, pakistan and israel refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and all have nuclear weapons. they are never criticized for this.

america supplied iraq with chemical weapons during the war with iran. this resulted in the second-most civilian casualties from the use of "weapons of mass destruction" in human history - only surpassed by the nuclear bombing of japan. america remains the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country.


human rights - china and saudi arabia disregard human rights on a regular basis - yet they are not confronted about it due to their economic relationship with america.

the cia facilitated torture through the use of third parties in europe in order to gather intelligence. american soldiers have been found guilty of murder and rape against unarmed civilan families in iraq, torturing prisoners in abu ghraib prison and suspected of doing so in guantanamo bay prison. despite their guilt, these soldiers are not punished to the extent that civilians normally are - thus not creating an effective deterrent.

until six months ago the american military refused to allow prisoners to be protected under the geneva conventions - yet it demanded captured american soldiers be treated so.

after its failed attempt to help the people of somalia in 1993 the american government has declined to intervene or speak out against massacres of africans. presidential decision directive 25 was a reason used by the american government to withdraw support from the united nations peacekeeping effort in rwanda - partly because the mission did not support american national interests. two genocides - one in rwanda in 1994 and one in sudan since 2003 - have taken place with over one million people killed.


terrorism - historically most terrorist attacks against americans have been carried out by saudis, egyptians, lybians, jordanians and even americans - never iranians - yet iranian-born citizens are harassed more than any other nationality each time they travel to america.

the only major incidents in which americans and iranians had hostilities were at the american embassy in tehran - where all hostages were released after one year - and the shooting down of an iranian passenger airliner by an american warship - killing 290 civilians.

iran has been a victim of terrorism by the mojahedeen for over ten years.

after september eleventh iranians poured into the streets to denounce the terrorist attack against america and a large vigil was held in tehran. four months later george bush labeled iran an evil country. despite this, one year later an iranian government poll showed that 70 percent of iranians had a favourable view of the american people - higher than even in the united kingdom. the iranian people love americans and have a great respect for them.

american foreign policy should aim to make more friends - not enemies :)

2 Comments:

  • wow, nicely put!

    By Blogger mIke, at 12/05/2006 03:41:00 PM  

  • America's foriegn policy is not something you can slap a simple "bullshit" label on. The vast majority of Americans are either isolationist democrats or isolationist libertarians; with a small percentage who actually advocate an agressive foreign policy. Fact of the matter is no major 1st world nation is able to follow through with an isolationist policy; Germany, France, UK, Belgium, Spain are all heavily involved in forign nations and all have pretty attrocious track records.

    America's isolationist stance was initiated during Woodrow Wilson's rule but proved extremely weak under Franklin Roosevelt when action was avoided against Nazi Germany in WW1.

    When the nations of the world look to you for leadership and assistance, you are doomed if you help and doomed if you don't. As you mentioned in your post you criticize the US for not taking action in other areas of the world and criticize them for execution of other objectives. While the US does have negative aspects of their foriegn policy, most of their missions are good intentioned; maybe too agressive at times, but we have also seen examples of being too passive at times.

    If there's one thing you can't fault the US for is taking a strong stance against extremist groups who do not deserve rational discussion. Many European nations have been hit hard by terrorist groups and have not been able to stand up for how they truly feel. The US on the other hand aim to be proactive and not wait for these nut cases to attack like 9/11.

    While I am obviously not as well versed with the Iran situation, I can see why it receives a lot of attention, unlike other nations you have mentioned. While some nations may not be as democratic or much different there are some fundamental differences. Iran has publicly advocated the end of the US and Israel, something these other nations don't do. Iran is persuing nuclear warheads and the last thing we need is another unpredictable nation with nuclear weapons. North Korea gives the world enough of a headache, let alone a country 14 times richer and 3 times more people. Again there is a big difference between a nation as unpredictable as Iran and nations who are for the most part controlable by the western world (sauds, india, pakistan). Even if the US was the only one to use nukes, nukes are just as powerful as a threat than a weapon; much like a gun in public. Just because the US felt the need to fire the gun once, does that mean it should advocate everyone and their dog own a gun? Of course not.

    Human Rights is always an area where the US has done very well and a few isolated incidents of rape do not represent the US's goals. Just think of the number of troops in Iraq (140,000) and the US rape rate was 34.4 per 100,000 (Canada is about half that). Looks like Americans were more likely to be raped relative to Iraq. That's not foreign policy but a statisical problem with human beings. So with 3.5years in Iraq, number of people; domestic rape rates would predict rape occurances to be 170; something I highly doubt. I don't endorse this behaviour in the least, but this is not something the US advocates and one must understand the realities of people.

    As a libertarian I don't advocate such agressive foriegn policy, but do understand the need to actively advocate rights and freedoms; and we must rely on the one world superpower to do so. The Whitehouse has had a broad range of ideologies pass through and not one was able to "make friends" with everyone and not one was able to please everyone. Like I said above, it's easy to criticize for not doing enough and doing too much, doning the bidding of the more reasonable western world is incredibly difficult.

    One thing I will continue to assert is that we cannot negotiate with extremists and terrorists; these people do not know logic and for every step back they will continue to push. It would be as reasonable as putting together a science course with the religious right (creationists) in the US. You will try to reason with people who fundamentally lack reason.

    By Blogger Jon Whitelaw, at 12/05/2006 07:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home