Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Why Does the West Have to Acquiesce in Third World Outrages?

  1. #1
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City area
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    715

    Why Does the West Have to Acquiesce in Third World Outrages?

    When the U.S. or a Western country asserts its interests without reservation and with pride, the sober mass media, academic world and foreign policy establishment say that we can’t do that any more. “Times are different” so they say. A lot of what is deemed "unacceptable" international conduct became so when the West was forced, for the first time after the wave of granting of "independence" to defend itself against the "Third World." This is true whether rhetorically at the U.N. (to which I think belonging is insane) or militarily against attacks such as September 11. Or economically with the expropriation of American oil and mineral companies. Or the oil embargo of 1973-4. We are forced to fight these with one hand tied behind our backs. Or acquiesce, in order to be in accord with “world opinion.”

    For example, rather than engage a limited amount of profiling, we have turned our cities into snarled messes. Office buildings now have limited access, with scanners in lobbies. Airports have become a nightmare, courtesy of the TSA. We put on willful blinders as to who is doing the attacks. We instead blame ourselves for supporting our interests in the Middle East, including the maintenance of bases, supporting Israel, and supporting regime change in Iraq. The firestorm of protest against moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was in the mass media, not in the Middle East.

    One of the reasons is that we are embarrassed that Israel unified Jerusalem by conquest. It is “unacceptable” to seize land in battle, even when the countries owning that land started a war by aggression. Yet we somehow do not find Russia’s seizing the Crimea by a bogus referendum unacceptable.
    I’m sorry, or maybe I should not be. Similarly, why should the U.S. and Europe have to accept tidal waves of migration? Somehow Japan and South Korea, much less Russia, are exempt.

    I believe that we can and should assert our interests, especially in situations involving foreign aggression.

    I am beyond the editing deadline but I had these additional thoughts.

    President Woodrow Wilson, without a modicum of support, sprung on the U.S. and the world, by surprise, his proposal for a League of Nations at the Versailles Conference. This created a movement among government officials for a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It was doomed to failure as Germany, even during the relatively mellow Wiemar Republic governments refused to disarm. I have reviewed archival New York Times articles from as early as the mid-1920's, to the effect that Germany was refusing to follow the Versailles Treaty's disarmament provisions. Unpunished violations of international accords is rife, especially among countries relatively impervious to public pressure. An example is the U.S.S.R.'s refusal to hold free elections in Eastern European countries after WW II. The U.S. and the West, on the other hand, is "policed" by its press into relative compliance. With international aid now being conducted largely through NGO's and the U.N. there are no consequences for the diversion of the moneys to armaments or corruption.

    I further believe that the West should benefit by the aid it dispenses. Same way parents take away the keys of a teenager, I do not believe that international relations should be a one-way street.

  2. #2
    Advisor german hick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Suierland, Germany
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    531

    Re: Why Does the West Have to Acquiesce in Third World Outrages?

    You are Darwinist, aren´t you?
    The right of the mighty...


    imagine hitler would have folund an ally in great Britain, as his first plans were. Would you want to live in a world after they had won the war?

    may be China is the next big player in the world - do you want a world community where they can do what they want without even feeling shame? Save "their" ressources for "their" great people?

    I know a lot of Americans only believe in the fortune of the strong - not my world to live in. Not in private, not in my country and not in the world. Funny they are so religious - isn´t it written in the bible "care for the poor" and "the rich ones woun´t go to heaven"?

    I´m no socialist, I believe in compromise. But compromise is hard work and afterwards often both parties feel they´ve lost. So it´s not that popular for simple minds.

  3. #3
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    920

    Re: Why Does the West Have to Acquiesce in Third World Outrages?

    Quote Originally Posted by JBG View Post
    When the U.S. or a Western country asserts its interests without reservation and with pride, the sober mass media, academic world and foreign policy establishment say that we can’t do that any more. “Times are different” so they say. A lot of what is deemed "unacceptable" international conduct became so when the West was forced, for the first time after the wave of granting of "independence" to defend itself against the "Third World." This is true whether rhetorically at the U.N. (to which I think belonging is insane) or militarily against attacks such as September 11. Or economically with the expropriation of American oil and mineral companies. Or the oil embargo of 1973-4. We are forced to fight these with one hand tied behind our backs. Or acquiesce, in order to be in accord with “world opinion.”

    For example, rather than engage a limited amount of profiling, we have turned our cities into snarled messes. Office buildings now have limited access, with scanners in lobbies. Airports have become a nightmare, courtesy of the TSA. We put on willful blinders as to who is doing the attacks. We instead blame ourselves for supporting our interests in the Middle East, including the maintenance of bases, supporting Israel, and supporting regime change in Iraq. The firestorm of protest against moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was in the mass media, not in the Middle East.

    One of the reasons is that we are embarrassed that Israel unified Jerusalem by conquest. It is “unacceptable” to seize land in battle, even when the countries owning that land started a war by aggression. Yet we somehow do not find Russia’s seizing the Crimea by a bogus referendum unacceptable.
    I’m sorry, or maybe I should not be. Similarly, why should the U.S. and Europe have to accept tidal waves of migration? Somehow Japan and South Korea, much less Russia, are exempt.

    I believe that we can and should assert our interests, especially in situations involving foreign aggression.

    I am beyond the editing deadline but I had these additional thoughts.

    President Woodrow Wilson, without a modicum of support, sprung on the U.S. and the world, by surprise, his proposal for a League of Nations at the Versailles Conference. This created a movement among government officials for a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It was doomed to failure as Germany, even during the relatively mellow Wiemar Republic governments refused to disarm. I have reviewed archival New York Times articles from as early as the mid-1920's, to the effect that Germany was refusing to follow the Versailles Treaty's disarmament provisions. Unpunished violations of international accords is rife, especially among countries relatively impervious to public pressure. An example is the U.S.S.R.'s refusal to hold free elections in Eastern European countries after WW II. The U.S. and the West, on the other hand, is "policed" by its press into relative compliance. With international aid now being conducted largely through NGO's and the U.N. there are no consequences for the diversion of the moneys to armaments or corruption.

    I further believe that the West should benefit by the aid it dispenses. Same way parents take away the keys of a teenager, I do not believe that international relations should be a one-way street.
    These are not comments of someone that is "very liberal".

  4. #4
    ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    35,086

    Re: Why Does the West Have to Acquiesce in Third World Outrages?

    Quote Originally Posted by JBG View Post
    Yet we somehow do not find Russia’s seizing the Crimea by a bogus referendum unacceptable.
    100 nations voted that Russia's illegal land grab is unacceptable....

    General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region

    U.N. General Assembly declares Crimea secession vote invalid


    Since 2014 Russia has been under economic and financial sanctions by the US, Canada, the 28 member EU bloc, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.


    We live in an extractive state, in which a ruling elite extracts wealth from the rest.

  5. #5
    Guru
    Evilroddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,923

    Re: Why Does the West Have to Acquiesce in Third World Outrages?

    Quote Originally Posted by JBG View Post
    When the U.S. or a Western country asserts its interests without reservation and with pride, the sober mass media, academic world and foreign policy establishment say that we can’t do that any more. “Times are different” so they say. A lot of what is deemed "unacceptable" international conduct became so when the West was forced, for the first time after the wave of granting of "independence" to defend itself against the "Third World." This is true whether rhetorically at the U.N. (to which I think belonging is insane) or militarily against attacks such as September 11. Or economically with the expropriation of American oil and mineral companies. Or the oil embargo of 1973-4. We are forced to fight these with one hand tied behind our backs. Or acquiesce, in order to be in accord with “world opinion.”

    For example, rather than engage a limited amount of profiling, we have turned our cities into snarled messes. Office buildings now have limited access, with scanners in lobbies. Airports have become a nightmare, courtesy of the TSA. We put on willful blinders as to who is doing the attacks. We instead blame ourselves for supporting our interests in the Middle East, including the maintenance of bases, supporting Israel, and supporting regime change in Iraq. The firestorm of protest against moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was in the mass media, not in the Middle East.

    One of the reasons is that we are embarrassed that Israel unified Jerusalem by conquest. It is “unacceptable” to seize land in battle, even when the countries owning that land started a war by aggression. Yet we somehow do not find Russia’s seizing the Crimea by a bogus referendum unacceptable.
    I’m sorry, or maybe I should not be. Similarly, why should the U.S. and Europe have to accept tidal waves of migration? Somehow Japan and South Korea, much less Russia, are exempt.

    I believe that we can and should assert our interests, especially in situations involving foreign aggression.

    I am beyond the editing deadline but I had these additional thoughts.

    President Woodrow Wilson, without a modicum of support, sprung on the U.S. and the world, by surprise, his proposal for a League of Nations at the Versailles Conference. This created a movement among government officials for a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It was doomed to failure as Germany, even during the relatively mellow Wiemar Republic governments refused to disarm. I have reviewed archival New York Times articles from as early as the mid-1920's, to the effect that Germany was refusing to follow the Versailles Treaty's disarmament provisions. Unpunished violations of international accords is rife, especially among countries relatively impervious to public pressure. An example is the U.S.S.R.'s refusal to hold free elections in Eastern European countries after WW II. The U.S. and the West, on the other hand, is "policed" by its press into relative compliance. With international aid now being conducted largely through NGO's and the U.N. there are no consequences for the diversion of the moneys to armaments or corruption.

    I further believe that the West should benefit by the aid it dispenses. Same way parents take away the keys of a teenager, I do not believe that international relations should be a one-way street.
    JBG:

    So you don't like the last century of trying to rein in war and militarism. 147 million people are estimated to have lost their lives in the 20th Century due to wars and aggression. Perhaps you would like to bump that number up in the 21st Century, perhaps even into the billions? These curbs are in place for a reason.

    No cheers for you.
    Evilroddy.
    "At the heart of quantum mechanics is a rule that sometimes governs politicians or CEOs - as long as no one is watching, anything goes.”
    ― Lawrence M. Krauss

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •