The kingdom remains one of the most repressive countries on Earth, particularly so for its 9 million female citizens, who are prevented from holding many jobs or driving and are considered by law to be legally beholden to their husbands. Practicing any religion other than Islam is banned. Torture and detention without trial are commonplace. Around 2,000 people were arrested in 2009 alone on political charges.
YEMEN
Military aid to the country has more than doubled since the Christmas plot. U.S. military aid to Yemen will likely reach $250 million in 2011,
JORDAN
ETHIOPIA
U.S. will continue to fund Ethiopia to the tune of $583.5 million this year, despite evidence that the government is directly using this aid to suppress dissent.
UGANDA
Shaya007
Monday
Iran
The Potter
quote:
Originally posted by Yohan
anyone else noticed that US govt drops their 'allies' like sack of potato whenever it looks like their 'allies' govt is about to fall? lol
I can see their point. The recent behaviour of Mubarak and his cronies helped me appreciate how it can sometimes be difficult in certain situations. You have to wait until the people decide that they want change. When they express themselves in such huge numbers, you can publicly support them to a degree. However, with Mubarak ready to play the card about foreign interference, and to stoke up nationalist sentiments, Obama had to be careful not to be seen to be leading the actual overthrow; instead, the US had to be slightly behind the curve, to let the situation evolve with its own momentum. It is a difficult balance, as you do not want to be accused of imperialism, because the people will then turn against you, rather than the dictatorship.
One thing it does not do is excuse imperialist behaviour in places like Brazil (1964) and Iran (1953), where western governments acted against the will of the majority of the people, and supported the overthrow of elected governments. The history of foreign interventions helps explain some of the manic paranoia that you saw on the streets of Egypt, when Mubarak helped spread rumours that foreign spies and agents had infiltrated the protestors.
Yohan
quote:
Originally posted by The Potter
I can see their point. The recent behaviour of Mubarak and his cronies helped me appreciate how it can sometimes be difficult in certain situations. You have to wait until the people decide that they want change. When they express themselves in such huge numbers, you can publicly support them to a degree. However, with Mubarak ready to play the card about foreign interference, and to stoke up nationalist sentiments, Obama had to be careful not to be seen to be leading the actual overthrow; instead, the US had to be slightly behind the curve, to let the situation evolve with its own momentum. It is a difficult balance, as you do not want to be accused of imperialism, because the people will then turn against you, rather than the dictatorship.
One thing it does not do is excuse imperialist behaviour in places like Brazil (1964) and Iran (1953), where western governments acted against the will of the majority of the people, and supported the overthrow of elected governments. The history of foreign interventions helps explain some of the manic paranoia that you saw on the streets of Egypt, when Mubarak helped spread rumours that foreign spies and agents had infiltrated the protestors.
I'd bet that Mubarak being deposed is one of the last things US wants in Middle East. Why? Because Mubarak has been one of more consistent American ally in volatile Middle East. And keep millions of Islamist in check. Now, America doesn't have a solid ally to count on in Middle East. The Saudis aren't exactly reliable, or stable regime either. And Israel is even more cynical about foreign policy than the Yanks.
American foreign policy is that of realpolitik, and democracy for Americans, don't really care about what govt other people have. Which is understandable attitude. After all, aren't govts suppose to look out for national interests first?
US only started to say stuff that didn't support Mubarak when it looked like Mubarak might actually get overthrown. It played a wait and see game.
And Mubarak, perhaps naively, expected US to give support to a long time ally. But like Musharraf, Mubarak was only useful as long as he had power, and got dumped.
All American foreign policy, has self serving interest first. American govt pays lip service to democracy and freedom and all that, and may even support those things, but only as secondary consideration, sometimes only a side effect of main American policy.
I think Iranian govt learned their lesson from few years ago
year and a half ago
but the possibility is still very strong,,,
just a random video from Egypt
Shaya007
another thing, the guy that got arrested has KAHUNAS the size of Everest mountain..LOL
I'm so surprised they haven't killed him yet, since well they kill 5/6 a week these days
The Potter
quote:
Originally posted by Yohan
American foreign policy is that of realpolitik, and democracy for Americans, don't really care about what govt other people have. Which is understandable attitude. After all, aren't govts suppose to look out for national interests first?
Ironically, that is precisely where they have been going wrong; in the long-run, what is good for other countries is also in the best interests of the US. As an example, if the British and Americans had not been so short-termist, and had not helped overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, the Iranian people may not have felt compelled to support a more hostile and theocratic government in 1979. Some of the conversations may have gone something like this: 'What the ! We try a western-style democracy and we still get shafted. There is no winning with these guys. Why the hell did we even give this election bollocks a chance? Screw this, let's become insular, have a system that hates the US as much they hate us, and revert to something that we can at least trust and believe in, our religion'.
The overwhelming evidence is undeniable: over the past hundred years, in respect to nations that were once regarded as a threat to the US, as soon as democracies were able to take root, more positive relations developed with America. Moreover, look at the kind of countries that are left: Syria, Iran and North Korea - says it all! In the case of Iran, the fundamentalists, at least initially, were able to blame the West for any internal problems and the public understandably lapped it up (the British were also easy scapegoats, because of their imperialistic behaviour over hundreds of years, over the period when Iran was Persia). One reason why democracies seem to reduce the influence of anti-American extremists, is that blaming others is no longer an option; people have the control to ultimately determine the kind of government and country that they want, so the buck stops with them and their elected officials, not the former imperialists. Countries also become friendlier with America, once democracies exist, as a result of the influence that soft cultural forces have, such as American universities, television, film, sport and music.
More Americans need to be in uproar at some of the narrow-minded ways in which democracies have not been supported, and how they are probably more despised and unsafe as a result. Not only that, but with every democracy that has developed over the past hundred years, trade with the US increases, American companies conduct more business and Americans become richer. That all strikes me as being in the best interests of the US, and a decidedly more patriotic stance.
