The international community 47 replies

Please wait...

Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

In September, thousands of protesters took to the streets in Myanmar (Burma), to protest at first against recent increases in fuel prices, but eventually just generally against the junta ruling the country. The military had held elections years earlier which resulted in the victory of the pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi's party, however the ruling military simple didn't allow her to form a government.

The international community condemned this in the strongest terms possible, calling the arrest of activists "disgusting" and "tyrannical", although there really weren't any consequences except for some economic sanctions, which the military doesn't care about anyway.

Now, in November in Pakistan, self-imposed military president Pervez Musharraf called out a state of emergency, had members of the judicary and opposition parties arrested and curbed freedom of speech laws after the outrage caused by his initial unwillingness to step down as army chief and wanting to stand again as president despite his unpopularity.

These actions were called "regrettable" and "disappointing" by U.S. secretary of state Rice, pretty much the lowest rung on the ladder of expressions of disapproval.

What I'm trying to get at here is, is there anyone who we can rely on to do the "right" thing? It seems everyone acts only in their own interest.

People don't care about Burma, because it's strategically unimportant.

The community doesn't care about Somalia, because no one has interests there.

The U.S. turns a blind eye on the situation in Pakistan, because Musharraf is an important ally in the "war on terror" in a region where they don't have many friends, although it seems to me Musharraf isn't really doing much, and just abusing his position as a friend of a superpower.

The "west" supports the independence of Kosovo, but only to counteract the evil Russians influence.

They ignore one of the harshest regimes in the world, in Turkmenistan (most people know nothing about it), because it supplies Europe with so much natural gas.

Bottom line is, the world is a wretched place where everybody only tries to get a bigger piece.

I think it can be generally agreed that an ideal situation would be a world where all regions are wealthy, and have healthy diplomatic relations with each other, but does anyone see how this could be possible?




Adamus

Ginseng Addict

50 XP

8th November 2007

0 Uploads

184 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago
I think it can be generally agreed that an ideal situation would be a world where all regions are wealthy, and have healthy diplomatic relations with each other, but does anyone see how this could be possible?

What's the worse that can come from nations constantly at eachother's throats? It keeps the intelligent people in positions of power, no matter their agenda, and keeps people actively interested in the world.

Every nation has their own political agenda, and always will, because it is about power and wealth. As for Rice, I doubt her public statements can be construed as her true intentions. Even if the US wanted to do anything about it, what could we do? We've already imposed economical sanctions on Iran, any more is jumping the gun.

There's no way in hell Congress would support military action.

Bottom line is, the world is a wretched place where everybody only tries to get a bigger piece.

Yourself included?




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago
Adamus;4027665What's the worse that can come from nations constantly at eachother's throats? It keeps the intelligent people in positions of power, no matter their agenda, and keeps people actively interested in the world.

It's not so bad for a lot of people. Millions fight for survival every day, but if you're not one of them, your biggest concern is often something like a promotion, a fight with your wife, or some sports car you want. And most people are not actively interested in the world, and know nothing about it.

Every nation has their own political agenda, and always will, because it is about power and wealth.

Obviously, my point is that this is not a good thing.

As for Rice, I doubt her public statements can be construed as her true intentions. Even if the US wanted to do anything about it, what could we do?

I mean to demonstrate that the U.S., and all other countries, employ multiple standards in their policy to suit their own interests.

We've already imposed economical sanctions on Iran, any more is jumping the gun.

Economic sanctions always hit the weakest in the hierarchy, the political elite is generally unaffected.

Yourself included?

That's a difficult question. Really I was referring more to political bodies, an individual is pretty much helplessly stuck in the middle. Helpless, that best describes how I feel.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 11 years ago
Karst;4027559 I think it can be generally agreed that an ideal situation would be a world where all regions are wealthy, and have healthy diplomatic relations with each other, but does anyone see how this could be possible?

I think an improvement for international climate over long term would be to let people all over the world decide for themselves wether they want to belong to a nation or found their own little republic instead of regarding each conflict that involves a perviously existing nation as a problem that noone else is allowed to interfere with.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 11 years ago

I am wondering why you Americans like to interfer other countries so much.Can't you just take it easy,I guess nobody is threatening you but yourself.This is my opinion,dont be angry if you dont agree with me because i have no hostility




Adamus

Ginseng Addict

50 XP

8th November 2007

0 Uploads

184 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago
I am wondering why you Americans like to interfer other countries so much.Can't you just take it easy,I guess nobody is threatening you but yourself.This is my opinion,dont be angry if you dont agree with me because i have no hostility

This thread has nothing to do w/ US international affairs.

The US doesn't 'interfere' with everyone. When a nation presents a reasonable hostility towards us, we take action to ensure our security. We don't go around kicking people's doors down simply because we don't get our way.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
The US doesn't 'interfere' with everyone. When a nation presents a reasonable hostility towards us, we take action to ensure our security. We don't go around kicking people's doors down simply because we don't get our way.

Oh, yes you do. Practically half the world hates the US now because George W. Bush acts the warmonger practically 24/7, and threatening Russia with a new missile 'defense' system in the Eastern Bloc isn't a smart idea either. Which also raises the issue of the fact that nobody would ever fire a missile in that direction except Russia, and Russia could just fire it the other way if they wanted to hit the US.




Adamus

Ginseng Addict

50 XP

8th November 2007

0 Uploads

184 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
Practically half the world hates the US now because George W. Bush acts the warmonger practically 24/7, and threatening Russia with a new missile 'defense' system in the Eastern Bloc isn't a smart idea either.

For starters, that missile baracade wasn't aimed at Russia. It was going to be aimed at the Middle East.

Second, how is he a 'warmonger'? Yes, we invaded Iraq, because threat-assesment was extremely high with Hussein in control, not to mention he was running a dictatorship with secret police and all. Trust me, the entire world is way better off without him. Iraq is now bubbling with democracy, and they can finally take steps to insure their own freedoms.

So where's the 'warmongering'?




Aeroflot

I would die without GF

169,400 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

15,205 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

The US simply cannot leave everyone alone. We've screwed up so bad that at this point if we just leave everybody alone something bad will happen. Either we'll be more susceptible to terrorism or some other country will gain so much power that it'll threaten our interests.

adamus So where's the 'warmongering'?

Don't worry, 'warmongering' is just the hot word right now for liberals. Warmonger this, warmonger that, US sucks, death to US. You know, the usual stuff we put up with.




homo sine domino

 

50 XP

1st September 2002

0 Uploads

2,739 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago
Adamus;4027834The US doesn't 'interfere' with everyone. When a nation presents a reasonable hostility towards us, we take action to ensure our security. We don't go around kicking people's doors down simply because we don't get our way.

1953 Iranian coup d'état In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power. --------------- 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, a covert operation organized by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, overthrew Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. --------------- 1973 Chilean coup d'état Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende ran in the 1970 presidential election, winning a narrow plurality (near 37%). U.S. president Richard Nixon stated his fear that Chile could become "another Cuba", and the U.S. cut off most of its foreign aid to Chile and actively supported Allende's opponents in Chile during his presidency, intending to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976. To this end, the Nixon administration clandestinely funded independent and non-state media and labor unions as well as promoted a military coup to restore order and remove Allende from the power that he had acquired. The U.S. role in the coup itself remains a highly controversial matter. Claims of their direct involvement in the actual coup are neither proven nor contradicted by publicly available documentary evidence; many potentially relevant documents still remain classified. The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup. --------------- Reagan funds Contras [Reagan's] administration authorized the CIA to begin financing, arming and training rebels, some of whom were the remnants of Somoza's National Guard, as anti-Sandinista guerrillas that were branded "counter-revolutionary" by leftists (contrarrevolucionarios in Spanish). U.S. support for this Nicaraguan insurgency continued in spite of the fact that impartial observers from international groupings such as the European Union, religious groups sent to monitor the election and observers from democratic nations such as Canada and the Republic of Ireland concluded that the Nicaraguan general elections of 1984 were completely free and fair. The Reagan administration disputed these results however, despite the fact that the government of the United States never had any observers in Nicaragua at the time. After the U.S. Congress prohibited federal funding of the Contras in 1983, the Reagan administration continued to back the Contras by covertly selling arms to Iran and channeling the proceeds to the Contras (The Iran-Contra Affair).

:cya: