Activism Change

Hizb Allah protest blasts 'US meddling'

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What gives ‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries the right to keep their troops in other countries and not others? I didn’t reply, because I had no interest in changing the topic of this thread to yet another boring tedious interminable discussion of Iraq — but if we’re still in Iraq in 16 years or 29 years, then we won’t be in any better moral position than Syrian is now. I wasn’t just referring to Iraq. The US and Britain have kept military bases all over the world for more than 50 years. The question that I asked you is very pertinent. From a fairness pint of view, what gives Anglo-Saxon nations the right to keep their militaries in other nations but other countries can’t do the same? As you are one of the more reasonable persons in this newsgroup, I would appreciate if you can answer this question, as it has been bothering me a lot lately. I can even start another thread with the same question if you it would be more convenient.

I am speaking from memory here, so you may wish to check the details. I believe many countries in this area were designated "protectorates", after WW1, which arrangements were formalised by the League of Nations. The conquering powers had a duty of care to the areas of the Ottoman Empire that they took, and which now constitute Iraq, Palesine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the states of the Arabian peninsula. Protecting and policing these states require armed forces. Britain, in particular, also wanted to protect its investments (such as the Suez canal) and trade routes (particularly to India). Some of these bases have passed to the USA, who wanted them to watch the Soviets during the Cold War. On more than one occasion, these forces were required to quell rebellions/insurgencies, such as the Kuwait Emergency (1961) and the Oman insurgency (1962-1976), and possibly others I am not aware of. I don’t wish to get involved in rights and wrongs, or such issues as the Sykes-Picot carve up, just to point out that the indigenous institutions of these states were probably not up to keeping the peace, and required external help, hence the bases. The US forces in SA were, of course, there by invitation.

Response:

Ironically, Israeli and American meddling is driving Lebanese (IE Shia Hizb Allah supporters…yhere are quite a lot of them!) nearer to Iran’s way of seeing things.  You are ironically creating the kind of alliance that you fear.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When they also protest against Iranian meddling, then I’ll at last take Hezb-e-Sheitan’s claim to by Lebanese patriots slightly seriously… — Hamas motto: لا إله لهم إلا        الموت،

Filed under: Protest Demonstration

Related Posts

• French Students Dare to Struggle--and Win
• MARCH ON WASHINGTON '99
• Archbigot Carey Cowers Into Confernce Avoiding Equal Rights Protesters,
• Update: Giuliani Protest NYC 12/8
• POPO GO HOMO
• Global Support for Mbeki
• Demonstrators support Saddam.
• OT - Rent-a-Mob
• Workers Around the World: 2/6/97
• Fat Al going to jail