Analysis of the
Media's Use of Techniques in Public Persuasion

A Media Awareness Project

Archive

U.S. Foreign Policy

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

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In

2 Comments

Reply Katherine Pinedo
5:48 PM on June 24, 2011 
Foreign policy is a touchy subject. As Mr.Paul Collier states in his book Wars, Guns and Votes this is "democrazy" While facing many conflicts, issues of dependency, industrialization, and Modernization one would love an ideal and perfect world. African countries are still going through the process of democracy in one?s
opinion. Many injustices are still a problem (World wide), although having a positive mind can benefit the world, Collier states that ?Instead of being naive, we are selfish. It is time to put it right? (Collier 2009), and one should but there is an old saying, ?help yourself before helping another?, when one is doing well than that one can save another. It is true there is a not a real feeling when we speak about money, we are looking to what is our interest. Sometimes it can be that we want Third World countries to not thrive?, Hilary Clinton Stated that we need to stop the dependancy of all third world countries. Vladimir Lenin shares almost the same theory as Marx, but really concludes that ?to speak of poverty one has to be educated and politics have to play a part of one?s life?. Who knows if what Karl Marx stated once that would be true, even if one country starts as capitalist or democratic it would then evolve to communism. Because the question would also be do WE also need the third world country or the "halve-not's" to survive?..........
Reply Roar of the Bewildered Herd
12:40 PM on July 14, 2011 
Katherine Pinedo says...
Foreign policy is a touchy subject. As Mr.Paul Collier states in his book Wars, Guns and Votes this is "democrazy" While facing many conflicts, issues of dependency, industrialization, and Modernization one would love an ideal and perfect world. African countries are still going through the process of democracy in one?s
opinion. Many injustices are still a problem (World wide), although having a positive mind can benefit the world, Collier states that ?Instead of being naive, we are selfish. It is time to put it right? (Collier 2009), and one should but there is an old saying, ?help yourself before helping another?, when one is doing well than that one can save another. It is true there is a not a real feeling when we speak about money, we are looking to what is our interest. Sometimes it can be that we want Third World countries to not thrive?, Hilary Clinton Stated that we need to stop the dependancy of all third world countries. Vladimir Lenin shares almost the same theory as Marx, but really concludes that ?to speak of poverty one has to be educated and politics have to play a part of one?s life?. Who knows if what Karl Marx stated once that would be true, even if one country starts as capitalist or democratic it would then evolve to communism. Because the question would also be do WE also need the third world country or the "halve-not's" to survive?..........

Paul Collier does in deed bring up viable concerns as to why there is a bottom billion struggling to survive and as to what we should do to change these circumstances. He explains that we need to be selfish but specifically ENLIGHTENED SELFISH and that we need to be informed. When the United States Bill of Rights were drawn out a majority of the founding fathers were students of the enlightened age. Men such as James Madison were part of this enlightened group of thinkers. At the time of their thinking there were no corporations, there were no totalitarian entities that were legally responsible to put profit over everything else. James Madison the man regarded as the Father of the Constitution said "The primary responsibility of Government is to protect the minority opulent against the majority." Did James Madison have the peoples best interest in mind, when saying this? Even during a time when the corporation was non existent, he still felt that there were haves and have nots and that the enlightened haves must protect itself from the have nots. The man who exemplified enlightenment still felt that those that were enlightened, must protect themselves from those who are not. With this said, how can enlightened selfishness exist today? As always, it is information that is power. Without an informed society there is only a selfish corporation at the helm. Corporations spend billions to prevent information from getting to the people. They use corporate propaganda to ensure protection from the people. Therefore, only an informed society can protect itself from the selfish totalitarian corporate entity and only then can we hope for enlightened selfish people to make change as does the hopeful Paul Collier.