Thursday, January 12, 2006

Why they hate US.

Pat Buchanan on the US' standing in the middle east.

America’s standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse. And the questions the survey raises are these: Do we care? And, if we do, do not the Arabs have a point? Has not U.S. behavior in the Middle East lent credence to the view that our principal interests are Israel and oil, and, under Bush II, that we launched an invasion to dominate the region?

After all, before liberating Kuwait, Secretary of State Baker said the coming war was about “o-i-l.” And while we sent half a million troops to rescue that nation of 1.5 million, we sent none to Rwanda, where perhaps that many people were massacred.

If Kuwait did not sit on an underground sea of oil, would we have gone in? Is our military presence in the Mideast unrelated to its control of two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves?

If human rights is our goal, why have we not gone into Darfur, the real hellhole of human rights? If democracy is what we are fighting for, why did we not invade Cuba, a dictatorship, 90 miles away, far more hostile to America than Saddam’s Iraq, and where human rights have been abused for half a century? Saddam never hosted nuclear missiles targeted at U.S. cities.

And is Israel not our fair-haired boy? Though Sharon & Co. have stomped on as many UN resolutions as Saddam Hussein ever did, they have pocketed $100 billion in U.S. aid and are now asking for a $2 billion bonus this year, Katrina notwithstanding. Anyone doubt they will get it?

Though per capita income in Israel is probably 20 times that of the Palestinians, Israel gets the lion’s share of economic aid. And though they have flipped off half a dozen presidents to plant half a million settlers in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, have we ever imposed a single sanction on Israel? Has Bush ever raised his voice to Ariel Sharon? And when you listen to the talking heads and read the columns of the neocon press, is it unfair to conclude that, yes, they would like to dump over every regime that defies Bush or Sharon?

Empathy, a capacity for participating in another’s feelings or ideas, is indispensable to diplomacy. Carried too far, as it was by the Brits in the 1930s, it can lead to appeasement. But an absence of empathy can leave statesmen oblivious as to why their nation is hated, and with equally fateful consequences.

4 Comments:

Anonymous r said...

It' always been my opinion that the first sign of intelligence is imagination. If you can't imagine you can't feel empathy.

Ipso facto...that probably explains why I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times we have intervened for actual humanitarian concerns.

1/12/2006 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Al said...

Cuba takes a lot of unwarranted abuse because it is not within the capitalist fold; in fact it is much more of a pure democracy than the US --- a socialist democracy with universal health care and universal education; it has non-party elections (not even the Communist Party can participate)which began at the grassroots level; and as for human rights abuses, Pat is simply crowing the right's message: Cuba has trials for suspected criminals --- there are no hellholes like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.

1/13/2006 04:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

May I just say how annoying (and a bit scarry) it is when I agree with Pat.....

1/17/2006 05:49:00 AM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

It's a sad, sad day when I find myself agreeing wth Buchanan.

1/30/2006 07:28:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home