- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Location
- Coffs Harbour, NSW
I agree Kissinger was a smart cookie (excellent SBS docu on with him recently) and that governments have to make tough decisions that have far reaching implications often on short notice - but thats the nature of things & I'm pretty sure this was known before anyone signed up to it. Really even since the turn of the last century the US has been the biggest kid on the global block, so from a moral perspective that brings with it more responsibility to get decisions right. End of story, no 3rd party blaming etc. Yet time after time they've half-cooked their homework and gone in all guns blazing only the realise when they're already in too deep they've misjudged or not even been aware of some very basic fundamental issues and then instead of making a hasty retreat they've had to stay and TRY to polish a turd as they can't bring themselves to lose face by leaving.
Whilst its one thing to have an instant decision blow up on a 50/50 call there's innumerable ballsups that they've just hung in with or never bothered to correct as they CBF'd or simply don't have anyone holding a gun to their head. The thing that REALLY shytes me about the USA's foreign policy is their blatant duplicity, they'll get up on their soap box and tell you how they're the greatest country on earth, champion of democracy and human rights blah blah blah.....and yet in reality they'll BLATANTLY change the rules or contravene exactly what they've used as the basis for acting in one sphere because it suits them.
The entire Vietnam war is a wonderful example of the USA's foreign policy disasters....you're really spoilt for choice on that one. Even to the present day where tens of thousands of Vietnamese who've overwhelming evidence they've suffered from the widespread use of defoliants (e.g agent orange) - and yet not a single cent of compensation has been paid to them ....yet compensation was paid many years ago to American servicemen & citizens who had exactly the same complaints. But thats really a very soft example and there's too many to chose from.
How about the Syphillis testing the US Defence force did on poor naive folks down in Honduras or wherever it was (recently in the news)? Didn't tell them or anything and gave them whats a terminal and horrible disease so they could test drugs on them without their knowledge.
Guantanemo Bay.....still there, still ignoring the UN Human Rights charter & Geneva convention because they can.....'enhanced interrogation' as a sanctioned policy & renditions to 3rd party countries/centres for more rigourous attention. 3,000+ poor souls were killed in 9/11 - a tragic murder no doubt but how many children have numerous reports estimated died as a direct result of the trade sanctions placed on Iraq? Or killed in Vietnam when they 'carpet bombed' Vietnam, Cambodia etc?
Honestly if folks have a clue they'd almost be either falling over laughing or crying at the blatant duplicity - when the 'Arab Spring' commenced hardly a day went past that a White House spokesman didn't put their support in for human rights and also people being able to vote and form a democracy....and yet one of the USA's closest allies is Saudia Arabia, who receives billions of dollars of preferential arms sales, training and other benefits and yet has a ghastly human rights record (stonings, lynchings in the middle of streets on a crane for adultery/homosexuality etc) and is essentially a dictatorship run by the one horribly corrupt family since it was formed. Oh but they have the worlds biggest known oil reserves.
Haha anyway....I just have a major issue with bullying, duplicity & straight out injustices. Whats that old saying, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Anyone really think the USA's foreign policy would get a warm reception if it were reversed back on them by a greater power? For us its a discussion point, but for thousands if not prolly millions of nameless folks its been a tad more than that.
I really think this argument is much a mountain out of a molehill as generally the right of politics has much more $$$ to throw at lobby groups, marketing campaigns etc and so they have become very sensitive to anyone asking the tough questions....as the private sector broadcasters will shy away from this as they know which side their bread is buttered on - but the public sector dares to ask these and so its automatically branded as leftist. So I think this is massively overstated.
Secondly, even if one were to concede this point surely someone needs to bring a vague semblance of balance to the overall landscape as the private sector broadcasters seem to me (generally I avoid them like the plague itself) to be definitely to the right. The most obvious example being Fox News in the US, which has almost become a figure of public lampooning...yet alarmingly is what a lot of yanks swear by. So I'd be very surprised given their generally VERY LOW ratings across the board if public broadcasters go anywhere close to balancing this out e.g I'm sure ABC & SBS are the two lowest rated TV broadcaster in Oz and I'd imagine its similar for PBS in the USA.
Whilst its one thing to have an instant decision blow up on a 50/50 call there's innumerable ballsups that they've just hung in with or never bothered to correct as they CBF'd or simply don't have anyone holding a gun to their head. The thing that REALLY shytes me about the USA's foreign policy is their blatant duplicity, they'll get up on their soap box and tell you how they're the greatest country on earth, champion of democracy and human rights blah blah blah.....and yet in reality they'll BLATANTLY change the rules or contravene exactly what they've used as the basis for acting in one sphere because it suits them.
The entire Vietnam war is a wonderful example of the USA's foreign policy disasters....you're really spoilt for choice on that one. Even to the present day where tens of thousands of Vietnamese who've overwhelming evidence they've suffered from the widespread use of defoliants (e.g agent orange) - and yet not a single cent of compensation has been paid to them ....yet compensation was paid many years ago to American servicemen & citizens who had exactly the same complaints. But thats really a very soft example and there's too many to chose from.
How about the Syphillis testing the US Defence force did on poor naive folks down in Honduras or wherever it was (recently in the news)? Didn't tell them or anything and gave them whats a terminal and horrible disease so they could test drugs on them without their knowledge.
Guantanemo Bay.....still there, still ignoring the UN Human Rights charter & Geneva convention because they can.....'enhanced interrogation' as a sanctioned policy & renditions to 3rd party countries/centres for more rigourous attention. 3,000+ poor souls were killed in 9/11 - a tragic murder no doubt but how many children have numerous reports estimated died as a direct result of the trade sanctions placed on Iraq? Or killed in Vietnam when they 'carpet bombed' Vietnam, Cambodia etc?
Honestly if folks have a clue they'd almost be either falling over laughing or crying at the blatant duplicity - when the 'Arab Spring' commenced hardly a day went past that a White House spokesman didn't put their support in for human rights and also people being able to vote and form a democracy....and yet one of the USA's closest allies is Saudia Arabia, who receives billions of dollars of preferential arms sales, training and other benefits and yet has a ghastly human rights record (stonings, lynchings in the middle of streets on a crane for adultery/homosexuality etc) and is essentially a dictatorship run by the one horribly corrupt family since it was formed. Oh but they have the worlds biggest known oil reserves.
Haha anyway....I just have a major issue with bullying, duplicity & straight out injustices. Whats that old saying, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Anyone really think the USA's foreign policy would get a warm reception if it were reversed back on them by a greater power? For us its a discussion point, but for thousands if not prolly millions of nameless folks its been a tad more than that.
Whilst I'm not doubting this could be the case I'd be a tad dubious of who these studies were funded by etc. Such things do tend to leave themselves open to being manipulated by 3rd parties with vested interests. And at the end of the day the most fundamental thing taught to any prospective journos is to be neutral/balanced in ones approach. Now in reality I'll agree this is basically impossible as we're humans and flawed completely but straying too overtly to being seen as imbalanced would surely be a very good way to put a rationale out there to lose your job if you've got a public broadcaster as your employer.
I really think this argument is much a mountain out of a molehill as generally the right of politics has much more $$$ to throw at lobby groups, marketing campaigns etc and so they have become very sensitive to anyone asking the tough questions....as the private sector broadcasters will shy away from this as they know which side their bread is buttered on - but the public sector dares to ask these and so its automatically branded as leftist. So I think this is massively overstated.
Secondly, even if one were to concede this point surely someone needs to bring a vague semblance of balance to the overall landscape as the private sector broadcasters seem to me (generally I avoid them like the plague itself) to be definitely to the right. The most obvious example being Fox News in the US, which has almost become a figure of public lampooning...yet alarmingly is what a lot of yanks swear by. So I'd be very surprised given their generally VERY LOW ratings across the board if public broadcasters go anywhere close to balancing this out e.g I'm sure ABC & SBS are the two lowest rated TV broadcaster in Oz and I'd imagine its similar for PBS in the USA.
Last edited:
