The justice of our "allies"

[andrewlittle]

here is a story that should curl your toes, and it's about one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. Good to know that the U.S. has such good taste in it's allies, isn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.

[Steven E. Webster]

Indeed!

Bush and the neoconservatives claim to want to bring democracy to the Middle East and yet our strongest allies are brutal dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan!

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

Guys...I hasten to remind you that many americans from all political persuasions, including Bush, have expressed disgust over how the Saudi Arabians have handled themselves. NOBODY I know (and I go to a conservative school, by the way) thinks that our Saudi Arabian allies are anything other than lousy.

In terms of America having good "taste" in its allies, just look at the choices. I think that America has aligned itself with the countries it feels are least likely to sponsor attacks on America or Israel, not based on each country's civil rights record. I'm not saying that that shouldn't be taken into account, I'm just saying that its like voting: when you get to the polls, sometimes you have to decide which one of the canidates is the least terrible out of several terrible choices.

[ladyinred]

perhaps an old buddhist saying? Of the two evils ,choose neither.One of the reason Bush stated we were in the war in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqis from an oppressive regime, how can you say yay on one side and nay on the other side. It seems we tend to choose allies that support so-called American interests even if they violate the people who are living under that regime.

If oppression is oppression how can you support certain countries that are known offenders of human rights and turn a blind eye and then in the same breath say you are trying to liberate other countries who have the same thing going on in their countries? It seems human rights takes the backburner if it conflicts with US policies and "interests" Obviously contradictory in terms of US foreign policies in the Middle East. Perhaps an acute case of schizophrenia?

Of course Saddam Hussein was once an ally of the US until he "misbehaved" and got out of line. What is to make us think that these so-called allies today won't be our "enemies" tommorrow? If it has happened before it can happen again. Interesting article on who helped Saddam build his arsenal of deadly weapons:http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp "As with many "devil's bargains," "it's come back to haunt us." Sen Donald Riegle JR

[Progo35]

That's precisely my point. Our enemies today may be our friends tomorrow and vice versa. But, I disagree about choosing neither. The US has to have some allies in the middle east, somewhere. I would say that from talking to people at Gordon who have gone on missionary trips in the middle east, Saudi Arabia is at least slightly less awful than, say, Iran. As for Sadamm Hussien, his people convicted and hanged him.

[ladyinred]

My point is have we learned from history? To be fair the United States was not the only nation supplying Saddam with weapons, Germany was said to be the primary supplier, but others were key players as well. But who get's to go in and clean up all the boo boos the American govt made with Saddam, of course our soldiers.

[Progo35]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing our country get slammed around when we do practically half of the world's charity outreach to other countries.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Progo35

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing our country get slammed around when we do practically half of the world's charity outreach to other countries.

Just a clarification Megan, and maybe this is what you meant, American INVIDIVIDUALS, congregations, and NGO's do a LOT ( I don't know about half) of charitable work around the world. A LOT! But the US Government doesn't do ANYTHING without strings attached and without some kind of foreign policy or domestic political ulterior motive. This has been true since AT LEAST the days of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

[Progo35]

I agree with that...I guess I'm saying that I don't think that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Coneleeza Rice, et al, get into a room every day and say, "Let's see how we can oppress the world and blow people up for oil," which is how some people on "the left" make it sound. For instance, I just watched a clip of Keith Obermann on You Tube in which he says that the current US administration is a bigger threat to our country than Al Queada. I mean, take a shower!

But, also, I should say, I'm not meaning to yell at anyone on this thread, which may be how my last post came across.

[andrewlittle]

In this country there is an old adage taken from some old goodball that said, "Government of the people and for the people." It doesn't say, "Government IS the people."

Contrary to Bush's declaration years ago that "if you're not for us, you're against us" in which he tried to paint critics as being against US citizens, it is entirely permissable and indeed advisable to criticize government when it is needed and does not equate to "slamming this country." The current government, or past ones for that matter, are not "this country" and trying to equate the two is obfuscation - very common, but obfuscation, none the less.

When "negotiating" or exerting pressure on other governments to conform to practices that are advantageous to US business interests, this government has paraded out the "civil rights violations" as discussion points. But, as in the case of China for just one example, as movement occurs to improve economic or strategic relations, the civil rights abuses just get conveniently swept under the carpet.

Saudi Arabia sits on the world's biggest known deposits of oil, and maintains a moderate stand on supply-demand issues AND functions as a strategic ally in the Middle East. With that support we exert economic, political and even military pressure on countries purportedly because of their lousy history of civil rights. We entered Iraq supposedly to free the Iraqi people. Will we enter Saudi Arabia to free Saudi people - NO, because they are allies. Will we enter Darfur to free African people - NO, because they don't have much econimic interest for us.

Civil rights and abuses, for this administration, are nothing more than bargaining chips to gain advantage, and dispensible when advantage is gained.

Nothing in this statement said boo shit - neither good nor bad - about the people or indeed the country in which we live. It is a criticism of those who are supposed to be representing the people and the country. There is a difference.

The Bush administration far less about democracy (hmm, I initially typed demoncracy - Freudian?) and civil rights than it is about power and profit.

[BruceChris]

Of the word *democracy* is.

Originally Posted by Andrew

The Bush administration far less about democracy (hmm, I initially typed demoncracy - Freudian?) and civil rights than it is about power and profit.

Democracy is American government-speak for unbridled free market capitalism. So of course we want to spread democracy around the world. It makes a great sound-bite.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Progo35

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing our country get slammed around when we do practically half of the world's charity outreach to other countries.

Remember this quote?

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

I've found myself in dissent mode for the last eight years. I'm in dissent about this illegal war, I'm in dissent about how this administration has treated LGBT people...hell, I'm even dissent about the lack of universal health care.

Why? Because I love my new country.

[Progo35]

Keith Obermann and MSNBC in general support euthanizing the handicapped even when there is no conclusive proof of the person's wishes. THAT is what the fascists did, proof positive. Who're the Nazis now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8242393/

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Progo35

Keith Obermann and MSNBC in general support euthanizing the handicapped even when there is no conclusive proof of the person's wishes. THAT is what the fascists did, proof positive. Who're the Nazis now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8242393/

Could we, at least, stick to the topic at hand?

There is a button on the main subforum pages that says "new thread". It is the handiest damn thing for posting something which is not the least bit relevant to the thread you're looking at, but which you feel compelled to talk about and get others feedback on.

It makes it much easier, when we honor this strange little system, for people to decide which discussion they want to engage in. And, you know, it has been tested and found to work. Just look at this thread, for example, which is about the human rights violations of U.S. allies.

Give it a try, Progo, you might be surprised how effectively it works.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Progo35

I agree with that...I guess I'm saying that I don't think that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Coneleeza Rice, et al, get into a room every day and say, "Let's see how we can oppress the world and blow people up for oil," which is how some people on "the left" make it sound. For instance, I just watched a clip of Keith Obermann on You Tube in which he says that the current US administration is a bigger threat to our country than Al Queada. I mean, take a shower!

What I'm sick of is the fairy tale we americans believe that we are the best and most honorable country. Our history from the moment we stepped foot on this continent has pretty much been one of arrogance and acquisition. I agree with Obermann. At this moment in history the U.S. is the greatest danger to the world, because we believe we have the right to tell every other nation what it can and cannot do. Howard Zinn is one of the very few who honestly tells the story of our history.

How dare we tell Iran and Korea that they can't have nuclear weapons when we are the ONLY country in the world to use nuclear weapons against another people.

We used to surpass most nations in education and health but now we're way down the list. And as yet this country can't seem to accept women as equal. How many other countrys have had women leaders? I can't even keep count.

What I pray for most is that we as americans will find a sense of humility that will allow us to treat others as our equals; not as our servants and slaves.

kara

[inca nitta]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

What I'm sick of is the fairy tale we americans believe that we are the best and most honorable country. Our history from the moment we stepped foot on this continent has pretty much been one of arrogance and acquisition.
kara

I'm sorry you feel hurt about our country. But, if what you say is true, which country in your view, would be better and have more honor than America?

Hasn't it been the same with other countries/nations/civilizations that have practiced arrogance and acquistion, in history? What about the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Spanish, the French? They were all empires, so how are we different than any one of them?

Inca Nitta.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by inca nitta

I'm sorry you feel hurt about our country. But, if what you say is true, which country in your view, would be better and have more honor than America?

Hasn't it been the same with other countries/nations/civilizations that have practiced arrogance and acquistion? What about the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Spanish, the French? They were all empires, so how are we different than any one of them?

Inca Nitta.

Not different AT ALL! Thats the problem. There is no country (no empire or great power anyway) that deserves more honor than America. America MUST hold itself to a HIGHER STANDARD than Rome, the Turks, the Brits, the Spanish and the French! We are a nation founded upon certain amazing ideals and principles and when we fail to live up to them it is more shameful than if we never had those ideals and were just the next big empire to climb to the top of the heap.

[Progo35]

Kara:

I'm sorry, but I think that you are absolutely NUTS to think that Iran and N. Korea should have nuclear weapons when they both have expressed intense animosity toward America and/or Israel.

Andrew: My comment on Olbermann and MSNBC is perfectly on topic because it goes to Olbermann's credibility as a newscaster. You and others on the forum feel that Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson's opinions on things should be grounds for dismissing most of what they say, so I think that I am perfectly within the standard of congruency where relevancy is concerned, if other posts are to be relied upon as a model. I don't understand the propensity I see here among many members to expect me to not give any credence to other of these men because of how they portray LGBT/social issues, but also expect me to excuse the ramblings of those who promote viscious and life-threatening stereotypes about the handicapped.

If Keith Olbermann wants to go spouting off, saying that the Bush Administration is as bad as the men who flew airplanes into the Pentagon and World Trade center, causing untold misery and death for thousands of people, than he had better at least put his money where his mouth is and be responsible in how he reports issues impacting the disabled community. If he only cares about what the Bush administration does overseas and doesn't care enough about a woman being dehydrated to death in his own country to cover her story accurately, with compassion, than I'm certainly not going to give credibility to controversial, explosive things he says about America. The kind of credibility needed to report such issues must be earned, and Keith Olbermann has not earned that credibility anymore than other contentious individuals we've been discussing on this forum. When he shows congruence in his concern for others, than I might start being more open to his commentary on the war and other things.

[Progo35]

All of this aside, does anyone here know how we might be able to help that poor woman mentioned in the BBC article? Does amnesty international have something going for her?

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by inca nitta

I'm sorry you feel hurt about our country. But, if what you say is true, which country in your view, would be better and have more honor than America?

Hasn't it been the same with other countries/nations/civilizations that have practiced arrogance and acquistion, in history? What about the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Spanish, the French? They were all empires, so how are we different than any one of them?

Inca Nitta.

So let me see if I understand what you're saying, ... because other country's have practiced arrogance and acquisition throughout history, that justifies what the U.S. is doing? What distresses me so, is we as a people have almost no comprehension of the history of the U.S. We simply place love of country ABOVE love of our God. As Pablo Casels put it so beautifully, "The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?"

Unlike in Nazi Germany, Americans can't even claim they don't know what our country is doing in their names. Dan Berrigan the Jesuit poet expresses it so well in his book, No Bars to Manhood, "We have assumed the name of peacemakers but we have been, by and large, unwilling to pay any significant price And because we want the peace with half a heart and half a life and will, the war, of course, continues, because the waging of war, by its nature, is total -- but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial. So a whole will and a whole heart and a whole national life bent toward war prevail over the velleities of peace….There is no peace because the making of peace is at least as costly as the making of war -- at least as exigent, at least as disruptive, at least as liable to bring disgrace and prison and death in its wake."

kara