h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

" would just ask, who funds /ed the nation quoted above?"

That's the point. In all instances, those nations were supported by the West *in the past*. Saudi is no longer given the carte blanche by the US it used to enjoy (although Saudi's huge oil reserves mean it has quite a bit of leverage and is no client-state).

If anything, the US has realised a truism - that supporting dictatorship or extermism (a favorite of US foreign-policy during the Cold War - see, as you rightly pointed out, the Mujahadeen and the Shah) is a self-defeating policy. The US is now in a position where supporting democracy is not just a "moral" goal, but necessary to it's own security.

>>The US is now in a position where supporting democracy is not just a "moral" goal, but necessary to it's own security.<<
The fact is that the USA has done in Iraq just what it tried to do in Vietnam, it has invaded and occupied a country. The USA doesn't want *democracy* (rule by the people) for fear that the 'people' might select an 'Islamist' government, or might, in any case, select someone who is *not* American friendly.
(Just as they're upset about democracy in Georgia and Shevardnadze right now!)

hi, i'm newn here. i am sorry to interrupt your conversation, but an interesting idea has just occured to me: what if america is actually beginning to subsidize international american firms in a lopsided attempt to stop terrorism on economical grounds?

just think about this: the only major terrorists attacks directed on any economical centres including us-backed multinationals were merely targeted for their symbolism and not in intent to cause major economic disasters in the world because the terrorists not only know that they would loose local support but also because some of their major fundamentalist gurus are, by familiar tradition, businessmen ( do not forget that ossama was the heir to the saudi-based bin-laden construction corporation and would have been one of the most influential people in the middle-east if he had not become the head of the taliban fundamentalist tribe).

so what the us are probably doing is pushing major american firms into the middle-east via iraq by giving them subsidies in order to make the region dependent on american economic input (think of the marshall plan
imposed on post-war europe if you want an idea of the effectiveness of this strategy: the whole european union is still paying back billions in loan interest to the us, whose government funded it with their war bonds).

the problem is is that most of their loose cash that was going into foreign economic policies was used up by either rebuilding former war zones or in anti-famine programs that were based on, you got it, the same loan conditions as, you got it, the marshall plan, which instead of helping these countries simply widened their national debt (the marshall plan was based on the same long-term loan conditions as those found in modern banks: they lend you, the money and you have to pay them back with circa 6 to 8% basic interest rate plus administrative expenses and inflation reevaluation applicable), which widely increased american government profits and influence. it took a major terrorist disaster to relocate ressources normally used to scr*w third-world countries for unimaginable profit and good p.r. (this type of policy makes the world think that the american governments care about what's happening out of their own constituency, which they don't).

so, ultimately, they were not helping famine-plagued countries for consciousness, but for long-term profits as well as propaganda-fuel. for the american government, they reckon that this is just an investment for economic stability, a reallocation of ressources for a higher profit (find the economic definition of opportunity cost for a more precise description) which is, for once, not fuelled by profits valued in money, but in the national security levels dropping maybe back to levels achieved on september 10th, 2001. thank you for replying if you want to.

thanks for reading.

I want to re-read this later, but from what I've read so far, it seems a reasonable theory!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p01s03-woeu.html
-Putin after the ogliarchs

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1126/p01s04-wosc.html
how Georgia happened
The US had a hand in Georgia along with the EU.
Is this all good news? I dunno yet.

This all goes along with the above thoughts

http://democracyunbound.com/bushn.html
Baby brother (Neil)Bush in business!
The middle article is the business one.
It has been written about else where as is mentioned but I cannot find access to the full artcle. Slate wrote about it in 2002

Sorry I think I already left one of those above links

Good post Trainspotter and Welcome

I think there is a lot of truth in your post and that you have the gist of it. I will have to read it again, it contained a lot of info!

thanks

>you are faced with the greastest attack on your nation's way of life that has ever occured<

Bigger than the Nazi's?
Bigger than Stalin?
Bigger than Communism in South East-Asia?

The American Government is forever telling it's people that they face the gravest danger to their freedom in their history. And it is exactly because no-one challenges that rhetoric that freebooters like Cheney and Halliburton make out like bandits while the rest of cower in our bunkers.

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/

From America's point of view it was the first time the war was brought to their own soil. (I know Pearl Harbour)

Stalin was possibly insane, but on the home front he needed a strong enemy to use as tool against his own people - America was exactly where he wanted it.

OO bookmark

I thought the Americans were *against* the overthrow of Shevardnadze... I am confused.
Excellent links, thanks abbi normal.

Neil was in our local paper yesterday, but not with regard to anything so interesting as that! It was simply the report of his divorce and his naive statements about his playing around with Asian women. I'd have found the substance of the article you linked to *much* more valuable news!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3536318&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

I do have to admit that Neil saying he knew not the first thing about semiconductors was revealing, though...

Another interesting link to take not of, thanks abbi!

4 consecutive posts folks....she's rattled!

"The American Government is forever telling it's people that they face the gravest danger to their freedom in their history. And it is exactly because no-one challenges that rhetoric that freebooters like Cheney and Halliburton make out like bandits while the rest of cower in our bunkers."

Blues, like many of the so-called "left" you seem to be forgetting something.

The people who destroyed the WTC are not anti-capitalist, they are not against American "imperialism" or the US Republican party.

They are conservative Islamic fundamentalists. To them, the West is not profit - it is woman's rights, gay rights, secularism, free speech, human rights, political diversity, even democracy.

It is not the evil USA v a bunch of lefty guerillas it is the USA v the extreme-right.

I don't think the USA is perfect, but I'm backing it (with reservations) in this "war" because I know what the fundys stand for and the idea that anyone should have to live under their law, or be murdered according to the dictats of "their religion" scares me. Al-Quaida are the opposite side of the same coin as those bible-bashing fundy in some parts of the USA. With guns and bombs. Never forget that.

and which side is the "left" criticising?

Zagreb,
you are falling victim to the White Houses favorite fallacy, that if someone is against the war in Iraq they are somehow in favor of Al Qaida. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is absolute bollocks. Iraq and Saddam were creations of the west, the only purely secular government in the region. The amoral 'realpolitik' school of foreign affairs that pursues national strategic and economic interests with no regard for principle or ideology is sadly running things in the USA again. George W. Bush does not care about freeing Iraq, he did not go there to free Iraq or he wouldn't care if they voted in a fundementalist Shiite government tomorrow. What he cares about is 1)getting reelected 2)lining the pockets of his investors, I mean political supporter.
If the cared about freedom as much as they say they do they would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Cuba by now.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, this has been proven again and again. All of the reasons given by the White House have been thouroughly discredited - there are and never were any WMD there. Iraq was never a threat to the US and has not been a threat to any neighbouring country since the first gulf war.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was being advocated by people like Paul Wolfowitz long before 9/11. It has draw vital resources away from the war on terrorism, it has given Al-Qaida its greatest recruiting tool ever and has provided 'the terrorists' with a new home in the wilds of Iraq.