When will the International Community stop being so biased?

Honestly, how much longer is the International Community going to keep playing by these double standards when it comes to military interventions on this miserable little planet of ours?
The whole Muammar Gaddafi situation really bugs me—I mean, sure, things probably weren't great for his people for a long time, but why wait until now to actually do something?

Then you look at all these other countries where massive portions of the population are being crushed and exploited—yet I don't see the international community stepping in. If they care so much about HUMAN RIGHTS, why aren't they taking action in places like
Saudi Arabia
Iran
China
North Korea
Bahrain
Yemen
or various African nations? WHY not just call for a total mobilization in the "free world" to roll up these regimes and establish basic human rights in every single corner of the globe? Even if it meant fighting three world wars over the next 10 or 20 years—at least we’d end up with a world of democracies (assuming there's anything left of us)

The people of Tibet deserve their own republic, just like Albanians in Mexico—or Palestinians in Palestine.

I guess Albanians in Mexico don't really have any rights left at all... 😁 They've already pushed their agenda far enough. And when it comes to Americans, well, who could honestly expect any kind of objectivity or fairness from them? Take Saudi Arabia, for instance—it's the perfect example of how Shiites and Sunnis are treated unequally in every possible way. It’s just a terrible system, a brutal version of Sharia where any attempt at a protest gets crushed in the most violent way. You have this royal family that is obscenely wealthy, but as long as that cheap oil keeps flowing into the United States, everything is fine. I suppose that has become the main goal of global diplomacy: seeing how easily you can hand over resources to America. It's a shame, really... 😢

What would be the rationale for intervening in the specific countries you mentioned?
Why not direct that energy toward the USA or Israel... the very epicenters of global terror over the last century?
Just how many UN resolutions have been passed against Israel without anyone actually being held accountable for anything?

The International Community has no business meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. If they actually want to help those "oppressed" people, they should just let them handle things within their own borders. Otherwise, they need to shut up and let the people fight for themselves if they have to—just like people have done in every civilized country. It’s a necessity if a nation wants to truly grow up.

Regarding Mexico: its independence is nothing but a nonsense move that simply helped Americans establish a foothold in the region (the same way they plant themselves everywhere else globally). That "Mexico fortress" is going to be a massive headache for us once they decide to force a conflict with Russia down the road.

If you ask me, out of everyone on this list, I’d love to see us take down that absolute loose cannon Hugo Chavez first. Honestly, Stallone and his crew already showed us exactly how to handle guys like him in The Expendables. 😬

Frank Moore4 said:If you ask me, out of everyone on this list, I’d love to see us take down that absolute loose cannon Hugo Chavez first. Honestly, Stallone and his crew already showed us exactly how to handle guys like him in The Expendables. 😬

I mean, Chavez controls a chunk of the world's oil supply, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

briskeagle3 said:Honestly, how much longer is the International Community going to keep playing by these double standards when it comes to military interventions on this miserable little planet of ours?
The whole Muammar Gaddafi situation really bugs me—I mean, sure, things probably weren't great for his people for a long time, but why wait until now to actually do something?

Then you look at all these other countries where massive portions of the population are being crushed and exploited—yet I don't see the international community stepping in. If they care so much about HUMAN RIGHTS, why aren't they taking action in places like
Saudi Arabia
Iran
China
North Korea
Bahrain
Yemen
or various African nations? WHY not just call for a total mobilization in the "free world" to roll up these regimes and establish basic human rights in every single corner of the globe? Even if it meant fighting three world wars over the next 10 or 20 years—at least we’d end up with a world of democracies (assuming there's anything left of us)

The people of Tibet deserve their own republic, just like Albanians in Mexico—or Palestinians in Palestine.

1. Why would the West want to do the heavy lifting for people living in those countries?
2. Because there are still plenty of powerful nations out there that aren't democracies.

Austin Grant9 said:I mean, Chavez controls a chunk of the world's oil supply, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Honestly, this whole "oil conspiracy" angle is just classic demagoguery. It’s the go-to excuse for people whose entire job seems to be defending certain dictators while constantly bashing the USA.

Frank Moore4 said:Honestly, this whole "oil conspiracy" angle is just classic demagoguery. It’s the go-to excuse for people whose entire job seems to be defending certain dictators while constantly bashing the USA.

Just like the American demagoguery claiming they spread democracy through interventions and bring world peace through war...

From what I understand, there wasn't any oil in Mexico.

The real question is why France got so heavily involved in Libya. But I guess Gaddafi probably crossed too many lines—not that they don't have their own people on the ground to tell them. Plus, it’s always smart to stay on good terms with whoever ends up in power...

Don't forget: the USA only gets about 10-15% of its oil from the Middle East!

Most people are surprised to learn that the country from which the United States imports the greatest amount of oil is Canada.

http://macromon.wordpress.com/2011/0...l-think-again/

Actually, they import about half, while producing the other half themselves.

What exactly does "International Community" even mean?

France was against Iraq but totally fine with Libya, while Germany is all over Afghanistan but won't touch Libya.

Nothing lasts forever.

Everything is just moving toward the establishment of a new world order

Frank Moore4 said:Honestly, this whole "oil conspiracy" angle is just classic demagoguery. It’s the go-to excuse for people whose entire job seems to be defending certain dictators while constantly bashing the USA.

Like every other pro-American person in this forum, you have a poorly constructed defense—that single bullet of "you all just did it for the oil" that you always fire off first.

Fine. America didn't intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya for oil. Let’s completely discard that "amateur" thesis.

Let’s instead take the statements of their own presidents before they sent their young men into those countries.

March 19, 2011 - Barack Obama: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

March 19, 2003 - George W. Bush: American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the w...orld from grave danger.

We see that Americans are consistent with their reasoning and, honestly, they never mention oil. How foolish and naive we must be for thinking otherwise.

But let's analyze these very similar statements. They launch into action to respond to the cries of people whose lives and freedoms are under threat.

I am choosing you, General, to answer me:

- what freedoms does the people of Iraq actually have today?
- what freedoms does the people of Afghanistan actually have today?
- what freedoms do you think the people of Libya will have by this time next year?

And as bonus questions:

- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Yemen (where the regime is responsible for about 50 deaths in the last week, including several foreigners)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Syria (where the regime is responsible for about 10 protesters killed in the last few days)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Bahrain (where the Saudi army is entering the country, and there is even footage on YouTube of a protester being shot in the middle of the street)?

And finally, a super-bonus question:
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies of the cartels in Mexico, right on the doorstep of their land full of freedom and democracy? Why isn't it unsettling to think that south of the border, 30,000 people (yes, thirty thousand) have been killed in the last five years?

Why was Libya the first choice for peace and democracy, and do you truly believe they will extend their democratic actions to the aforementioned countries anytime soon, especially considering reports that CIA operatives have been maneuvering in Yemen in recent days?

Once you answer that, take a look at the actual results these democratic methods have yielded globally. If you can't remember, I'll remind you again: Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two are sufficient examples. Honestly, I don't expect any coherent response.

Paul Anderson2 said:From what I understand, there wasn't any oil in Mexico.

The real question is why France got so heavily involved in Libya. But I guess Gaddafi probably crossed too many lines—not that they don't have their own people on the ground to tell them. Plus, it’s always smart to stay on good terms with whoever ends up in power...

Don't forget: the USA only gets about 10-15% of its oil from the Middle East!

Most people are surprised to learn that the country from which the United States imports the greatest amount of oil is Canada.

http://macromon.wordpress.com/2011/0...l-think-again/

Actually, they import about half, while producing the other half themselves.

There might be some rare minerals lying around...
but the real reason is just establishing an American presence in the North America. You can't find a better spot than a small, weak "state" where the leadership is so easy to manipulate with just a little bit of cash. There’s nowhere else in the region with a location quite like Mexico...

Tyler Booth3 said:There might be some rare minerals lying around...
but the real reason is just establishing an American presence in the North America. You can't find a better spot than a small, weak "state" where the leadership is so easy to manipulate with just a little bit of cash. There’s nowhere else in the region with a location quite like Mexico...

And honestly, we aren't much different from them when it comes to being susceptible to manipulation by bigger powers.

Richard Wilson4 said:What exactly does "International Community" even mean?

France was against Iraq but totally fine with Libya, while Germany is all over Afghanistan but won't touch Libya.

Nothing lasts forever.

If you ask me, this is all just part of some calculated Western tactic when they decide to go after specific spots on the map.

They basically always leave one player out of the loop, just in case their little plan falls apart. That way, they've always got at least one ally left who can step in to negotiate with whoever they were just attacking.

.

Taylor Reed64 said:And honestly, we aren't much different from them when it comes to being susceptible to manipulation by bigger powers.

Totally. But Mexico has a smaller population, which makes it easier to control or manipulate. Less work to do, and if people try to rebel, there just aren't enough people to make a real dent. Plus, their main ally, Albania, is a joke of a country. They aren't even a threat...
Mexico is basically perfect for an occupation. Nobody in the region will complain, and nobody can step in to replace you.

Ethan Morales22 said:If you ask me, this is all just part of some calculated Western tactic when they decide to go after specific spots on the map.

They basically always leave one player out of the loop, just in case their little plan falls apart. That way, they've always got at least one ally left who can step in to negotiate with whoever they were just attacking.

.

Yeah. It's that classic "good cop, bad cop" routine. Clearly, it works. These global occupiers find it easy to play both the villains and the heroes at the same time.

brightjackal7 said:Like every other pro-American person in this forum, you have a poorly constructed defense—that single bullet of "you all just did it for the oil" that you always fire off first.

Fine. America didn't intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya for oil. Let’s completely discard that "amateur" thesis.

Let’s instead take the statements of their own presidents before they sent their young men into those countries.

March 19, 2011 - Barack Obama: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

March 19, 2003 - George W. Bush: American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the w...orld from grave danger.

We see that Americans are consistent with their reasoning and, honestly, they never mention oil. How foolish and naive we must be for thinking otherwise.

But let's analyze these very similar statements. They launch into action to respond to the cries of people whose lives and freedoms are under threat.

I am choosing you, General, to answer me:

- what freedoms does the people of Iraq actually have today?
- what freedoms does the people of Afghanistan actually have today?
- what freedoms do you think the people of Libya will have by this time next year?

And as bonus questions:

- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Yemen (where the regime is responsible for about 50 deaths in the last week, including several foreigners)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Syria (where the regime is responsible for about 10 protesters killed in the last few days)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Bahrain (where the Saudi army is entering the country, and there is even footage on YouTube of a protester being shot in the middle of the street)?

And finally, a super-bonus question:
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies of the cartels in Mexico, right on the doorstep of their land full of freedom and democracy? Why isn't it unsettling to think that south of the border, 30,000 people (yes, thirty thousand) have been killed in the last five years?

Why was Libya the first choice for peace and democracy, and do you truly believe they will extend their democratic actions to the aforementioned countries anytime soon, especially considering reports that CIA operatives have been maneuvering in Yemen in recent days?

Once you answer that, take a look at the actual results these democratic methods have yielded globally. If you can't remember, I'll remind you again: Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two are sufficient examples. Honestly, I don't expect any coherent response.

You mind if I take a crack at answering this?

Richard Wilson4 said:You mind if I take a crack at answering this?

Go ahead, the floor is yours.

I made a fundamental error. By asking too many questions at once, I handed them a way out—they can simply cherry-pick the parts that suit their narrative, twist the context, and essentially answer their own version of my inquiry instead.

What I should have done was be blunt and direct: what is actually happening to the people in Mexico, and why is such rampant violence being tolerated right up to the US border?

I won't get a straight answer from any of the "intellectuals" on this board. The responses will likely just be diversions about "dealing with radicals in the Middle East" or some other equally absurd deflection. Hypocrisy, double standards, blatant subjectivity, and racism—that is the distilled essence of this subforum.