|
I'm incredibly tired (it's 7.00am and I still haven't been to bed) but I'll have a go at posting a meaningful response:
| quote: | | should the US not stand up to what it belives is right or wrong? it sides with israel because it represents western values of democracy and freedom. |
This is a tough issue that you've brought up here actually: to what extent should a country go to in order to stand up for what it believes in? The US has made it quite clear that it supports the state of Isreal (which I have no problem with - I too support the state of Isreal) but in doing so - and in the method by which has done so - it seems to have alienated many Arab states, or at least the people of many Arab states. This - regardless of your stance on the Palestinian conflict - you would have to agree has gone a long way towards the propogation of anti-western terrorist activities in thse states, and of the anti-western sentiment in these states in general.
For me, the US has every right to "stand up for what it believes in" (in a diplomatic sense) but it does not have the right to force these beliefs upon anyone else, nor to assume - without any real justification - that the "western values of democracy and freedom" are the only values by which to live. To be honest, by invading a sovereign state in order to instill these values (yes, I'm thinking of Iraq here) the US would be violating the very "principles" it claims it is so vehemently trying to preserve.
| quote: | | let me say this you've found many many many 'Security Council' resolutions condeming Israel, but not once have they adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of arab attacks agianst israel (prove me wrong). |
Without wanting to sound like I'm justifying the actions of the PLO, I think it's gotten to the stage where Yasser Arrafat is no longer in charge of the factions that fight on behalf of this cause, and - as such - it is very difficult to pin the blame for these horrendous acts of terrorism on any specific state or organisation. While you almost certainly understand the situation better than I, I'm merely suggesting the UNSC is neither anti-semitic nor pro-Palestinian, but that it's merely easier to pinpoint specific acts of aggression organised or approved by the Isreali government than it is to pinpoint those organised or approved by those under Arrafat.
I try to stay out of the Isreal/Palenstine debates - if for no other reason than I don't understand it too well - but I'm simply trying to point out that if the UNSC appear to be targetting a specific body or government, then we shouldn't immediately rush to the conclusion that there is some inherent bias (fairly difficult when you consider the amount of nations involved - don't the US have veto power over these resolutions btw?) but rather that there is a perfectly justifiable - if not necessarily adequate - reason for it.
| quote: | | the security council has set up Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly to deal with israel on varied occasions, but never have they been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters of Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. agian i dare you to prove me wrong. |
On this point, though, I agree with you entirely.
Even John Howard - our right-wing leader - has called into question the methods of Zimbabwe leader President Mgabe - and has tried to persuade the rest of the Commonwealth into agreeing on economic sanctions and the like - yet I don't think the UN has made any serious effort to stop the fascist dictatorship Mgabe has set up..... and the East Timor situation was just as ridiculous: John Howard asked repeatedly for UN (and US) intervention yet received no help whatsoever - and he was initially criticised for this delay - until finally Australian peace keeping troops were sent to protect the sovereignty of this small island.
In fairness to the UN, they have - more recently - been an essential part in staging the elections that have since been held there - and are (or at least were?) in the process of recognising East Timor as a sovereign state.
As for the Tibet situation (pathetic as it is), I think that the fact that China is one of the permanent members may have something to do with the UN's indifference. 
| quote: | | Yes, but you miss the assertion that the USA sells weapons across the world to many nations (pakistan, philipines, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Columbia, etc..) at the same high levels, yet the tensions created by these sale of arms in those regions don't result in the terrorism we see from the middle east. |
Yes but you miss the point: the USA's desire for a more "global" economy has come back to bite it on the bum, even if these rogue nations are the "exception" rather than the rule.
If the US's desire to quash the USSR had not been so strong then the terrorist cells who threatened it out of Afghanistan would not have been so strong either. If the US's desire to quash the fundamentalist Islamic politics of the Iran Ayatolah had not been so strong, then neither would have Saddam Hussein's resistance in the early 90's. Polarising politics - it must be learnt - pisses off more people than it appeases.
No one side in any war is entirely in the right, and the dichotemy that the US government has dug itself into recently goes some way towards highlighting the dangers of alienating large populations of people in this way. To think that the enemy of the enemy "is our friend" - as we have seen happen time and time again in this past half century alone - is a dangerous view indeed. To think that America both funded and supported the two people it is most out to get (Bin Laden and Hussein) should be some indication that the American desire to ivolve itself financially in military operations it doesn't quite seem to understand, is unadvisable at best and self-destructive at worst.
| quote: | | Secondly, I personally believe that the sale of arms by the USA to middle eastern countries has actually PREVENTED mass amounts of people from dying. |
I'll direct you to the post I made towards the end of the "America Bashing" topic that explains how America sold the chemical agents to Iraq used by Hussein to murder thousands of Kurdish Iraqis in the late 1980's. America not only provided the toxins, but increased exports of such chemical agents after the event, not only ignoring but seemingly encouraging such genocide. I fail to see how many lives America saved in this endeavour.... anything for a buck eh?
Having said that, if you have any specific instances where American military funding has saved lives, then I'd be quite happy to hear them.
| quote: | | Obviously these nations would have obtained arms via anothe source if not for the USA, and the arms would probably be less accurate and more out to date, prolonging any war or conflict that has arisen in the middle east to date, ensuring more casualties. |
So, in other words, by having the US send their more "accurate" arms, the participants in the conflict could - mercifully - kill themselves off more quickly? Bonus!
I obviously wasn't aware that US business was so wonderfully humane! 
| quote: | | This is obviously not the way the Arab (or muslim) world views this, but maybe the fact that their are different persepctives to view this single issue, show you that indeed perhaps the Arab world is the one that is blind here. |
The "Arab" world - if we could lump so many different cultures into one convenient demographic - is almost certainly just one perspective, and almost certainly very wrong in many ways - but it would be wrong to this as an admission of US righteousness.
I'm not sure how familiar any of you are with Hegel, but in his "Phenomenology of Spirit" (spiritual dialectic for any of you familiar with Plato, Hegel or Marx), Hegel speaks of the dichotemy that brewed in his own age between the growth of atheistic science (the "Enlightentment") and its opposition to the "faith" of established religion. He suggests that while the "Enlightenment" cause would seem to have the greater momentum - and thus, rightly or wrongly - a greater likelihood of "winning" this "argument", he says:
"Enlightenment's failure to embrace the otherness within itself will be the source of its eventual downfall, while giving it, temporarily, a feeling of power and certainty."
What does that mean? Basically - if we were to understand the rest of the dialectic - so long as one side fails to recognise the other in itself, it can never attain consciousness. Reread the above paragraph with the word "Englightenment" replaced by the word "America" in the context of this "West vs Muslim" battle, and you may being to understand what I'm getting at:
Any cause that fails to see fault in itself - or at least see the merit in the contrary view point - has dug itself into a dangerous dichotemic world in which it will continue to be opposed - violently, on occasions - as we have already seen time and time again.
| quote: | | One must also understand the way the people have been viewed to see such issues and respond to it. Obviously if the governments had propogated a more tolerante view, such views would be more common place in the arab world today. |
Replace the phrase "Arab world" with "the US" and you may begin to see my point.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
