The Wars That Keep On Giving

The Wars That Keep On Giving - How On Earth Did We (USA)Get Saddled With Such Creepy Clients...

When Bush and his MERRY BAND OF NEOCONS set out, blood in one eye and $$$ in the other, to start (preempt) the wars they had craved, for so many
years; they acted as though they had a crystal ball and could see into the future.

{This is how we (USA) need to spread Democracy (Free Trade), since WE are the grownups upon the globe, it is up to us to tell those too immature to understand how to live (deregulatorily) ... Even if it takes pre-emptive wars to make them wise up, that is what we must do...} was the Neocon mantra.

I wonder what Bush/Cheney and devotees, who were (and are) too big for their BOOTS thinking now, witnessing how wrong they were and how many lives that they were directly responsible for losing due to their immoral supercilious actions?

Never mind, I already know, ARROGANCE OUTMANEUVERS THINKING!

Let us hope that We-The-People will never have to be a party to such horrendous decisions made on our behalf from an unscrupulous few who have the power (GIVEN BY US) to use us to fulfill their sick fantasies. (Forgive me for my cynicism but I really believe it will never end, we will always be used by the powers that be.)

Please read the article below for enlightenment on: “How on earth
(did) we (USA) get saddled with such creepy clients as Karzai and
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, over and over again?”

thinkingblue

Lessons from Egypt: Does Safety Trump Democracy?
By Joe Klein Feb 14, 2011 Time Issue

There was some awful news from Afghanistan last week,

overlooked in the midst of Egypt's tectonic eruption. Kabul Bank
is near collapse. Apparently the owners — who include
President Hamid Karzai's brother Mahmood and other assorted
political cronies — had, among other nefarious activities,
taken the bank's assets and speculated in Dubai real estate,
which promptly crashed. The Afghan government does most of its
business through Kabul Bank; if the bank fails, the government
won't be able to pay its workers, including the army. Millions in
international aid may be washed away.

And so, a familiar dilemma: Bail out the bank or let it collapse?
My first thought was that the situation might provide the NATO
coalition with some leverage: we could offer to bail out the
bank, but only if Karzai stepped aside and allowed an esteemed
technocrat — like Ashraf Ghani, who ran for President
against Karzai and was crushed — to run the show in the
interim. But this was no leverage at all, as I learned in
conversations with several Afghan sources. Karzai would just as
soon allow the bank to collapse. "Then he could say [to the
Americans]," a Western diplomat told me, "You figure
out a way to pay the army."

How on earth do we get saddled with such creepy clients
as Karzai and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, over and over
again? In large part, it's a vestige of the Cold War,
when all the world was a potential theater in the struggle
against communism. Afghanistan was certainly one; the Soviet
departure created a vacuum, and the Taliban rushed in. The
Kissingerian effort to transfer Egypt from the Soviet account to
the American side in the 1970s, later perfected by Jimmy Carter,
was certainly another.

Our adventures in the world have been accompanied by a
never-ending tug-of-war between U.S. foreign policy realists and
idealists. Through much of the 20th century, the idealists tended
to be liberals in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson, who wanted World
War I to make the world "safe for democracy." Since
Vietnam, however, liberals have been more pessimistic. They
winced when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil
empire," fearing a nuclear confrontation. They were
infuriated by the naiveté and hubris of George W. Bush's
"Freedom Agenda," which was promoted as a rationale for
the invasion of Iraq after that country's weapons of mass
destruction turned out to be a mirage. They are increasingly
skeptical about the war in Afghanistan and appalled by the
prospect of a pre-emptive war with Iran.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045878,00.html#ixzz1FjD4Fd27