[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] so beyond non-intervention in Sudan and Rwanda (2 places which aren't entirely accessible to US forces anyway), what evidence do you have that the west doesn't care about civies? Furthermore, I must ask why foreign policy from 60 years ago is relavent to western attitudes today.finally, I want to ask if your thesis is falsifiable. You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to attribute our use of precision-munitions to pseudoaltruism.
danwallacefan
Not 60 years ago, over the lapse of 60 years.. We still support Saudia Arabia, a country that thinks its ok to flog elderly women 40 times.. We only support places of strategic importance hence why places such as Africa are largely overlooked because they have no resource we are extremely interested in.. For instance look at the places we have intervened militarliy.. And they will either deal with spread of communism or security of the Persian Gulf.. I suppose the fact that Reagan gave weapons to both Iran and Iraq, during the war to kill each other was considered "saving civilians lives".. Or what about the continued support for 26 years of the Shah in power? Or the support of extremists arab nationalist groups during the cold war to kill communist sympathetic people with in the region.. By and large the majortiy of our good will goes to regions we consider strategically important.. if we only care about intervening in resource-rich countries or strategically important countries, I have to ask of what importance is the Balkans? Nobody was trying to spread the USSR or communism, it was just ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, how often do Saudis flog women? It sounds like something that some isolated court did despite the outrage (I'm sure moderate muslims would be outraged) throughout the world. Furthermore, I would say that we prevented the nationalization of the Iranian oil supplies simply because it is an out-and-out communistic policy. Communism undermines a necessary condition for freedom (that condition being capitalism and free markets)Actually the British were in control of Iranian oil, so Mossadeq kicked them out, said it's the iranian people's oil, and since Churchill was a **** and couldn't do anything about it without looking like the bad guy so he went to Truman to help him overthrow Mossadeq, and Truman said that Mossadeq had the right to regulate the oil in his country. Afterwards, seeing as how Eisenhower was extremely paranoid of communism and a strict follower of containment, Churchill went up to Eisenhower claiming Iran was following communist policy in wanting to expel the British oil companies and managed to get his support for Operation Ajax. Iranians had alot more freedom and rights under Mossadeq than after he was overthrown. Thats why they brought an anti-american government into power. They were pretty butt hurt.
And I think you underestimate the harsh conditions women go through in that part of the world. Women pretty much have no rights, what so ever. In Iran they can't go outside without covering every inch of their body save their face or even go on vacation unless their husbands approve. In custody cases the husband always wins, etc, etc.
It's gotta suck to be a woman there:lol:
Log in to comment