|Posted by Roar of the Bewildered Herd on February 24, 2011 at 1:14 AM|
All one needs to do in order to understand present-day foreign policy is to look back on historical patterns. Remarkably, the U.S. has spoken up against Libya insisting that they will be held accountable for the violence against their protestors. On the contrary, nothing of the sort was indicated toward the Egyptian government when they demonstrated violence against their country’s protestors. The same seems to hold true for Yemen and Tunisia. Violence and death of many protestors were present in all four locations, some more than others, but the U.S. did not respond in the same manner as with Libya. Could this have something to do with Libya sharing a border with Egypt? Some would argue it is because the United States publicly supported Egypt and Mubarak for decades. Along with this fact, it is very possible that this could be an offensive move for the United States to invade Libya in order to keep a military presence in the region. What is to come of Egypt, the most significant region in the world? And who is to protect it and who is to control it? In other words - who gets what? It is almost reminiscent of the scene in the Godfather Part II, when Michael Corleone and Hyman Roth cut a cake in the shape of Cuba and then divide it to decide who gets what piece. It is difficult to avoid the fact that the pawns are being moved and the strategy is in place to bring ‘democracy’ to the North African region.
Routinely, a U.S. government sponsored leader is brought into the country in order to maintain a military presence that can keep a close eye on its protected investments within the region. The Shah of Iran was an example of this, until the Ayatollah changed that during the Islamic Revolution. Then we had Saddam Hussein in Iraq until he no longer answered to U.S. interests. The same went for the South American countries of Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay and Venezuela.
Perhaps the best way to find out whether a country is sponsored by the United States is to observe how the leader is spoken about, which almost never has anything to do with the leader’s human rights record. The true litmus test of a U.S. government sponsored leader is by listening to the U.S. mainstream media and their comments about the leader. Words and phrases to listen for are ones like ‘evil-doer’, ‘terrorist’, ‘buffoon’, ‘socialist’, ‘communist’, ‘Hitler reincarnated’. If anything similar to this projected image is portrayed, it is safe to say that they are not playing ball with the United States. Silence regarding their human rights violations along with a presence of incredible wealth however, seems to indicate a U.S. sponsored leader of the region. We recommend that you visit johnperkins.org to learn about United States foreign policy and the historical patterns of infrastructure development in Third World countries.
Categories: Foreign Policy