Why can US and Israel get away with anything?

[A.P. Richelieu]

Nope.

Certainly not all Muslims, but enough to cause conflicts all over the place.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Certainly not all Muslims, but enough to cause conflicts all over the place.

Nope either.
Refugee crisis in ME and Beyond isn't about fleeing bc X or Y prefer you dead than speaking...
the ME and Beyond was under that "Threat" for 60+years if you take Modern ideology...Without adding the "Colonial part" of their history... you get yourself Centuries...

Refugees exist when no "Hope" exist in their eyes... Therefore staying is equal to death... That could happen for many reasons... Starvation...Wars etc...

Now come the Q? But why?Who?Where... And the Answer is "Everyone"...But some got a bit more than the other..; and for the MENA region is indeed the West... Who used and encourages specific "Power/Ideologies/People" to maintain their "Assets"...

Then comes people who ask you "But will you always put the blame on the West, couldn't you have change your current situation by yourself?" and the answer is yes and no... and that's what happened/ Happening in MENA... People tried to surpass their own problems/Evil and they re paying the price... But the No comes when that same "Entity/West" is also playing a double game... By Encouraging both side of the conflict... and therefore making it a "Dead End".

And that the History of Human civilisations... One doesn't care for the other...as long as he doesn't benefit from it... and Right now... it is the case... whatever the country...whatever their "position" on the "Human Rightful scale"... Including the "Good Countries"...

Charity doesn't exist for "States"... it's an individual Human thing...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Nope either.
Refugee crisis in ME and Beyond isn't about fleeing bc X or Y prefer you dead than speaking...
the ME and Beyond was under that "Threat" for 60+years if you take Modern ideology...Without adding the "Colonial part" of their history... you get yourself Centuries...

Refugees exist when no "Hope" exist in their eyes... Therefore staying is equal to death... That could happen for many reasons... Starvation...Wars etc...

Now come the Q? But why?Who?Where... And the Answer is "Everyone"...But some got a bit more than the other..; and for the MENA region is indeed the West... Who used and encourages specific "Power/Ideologies/People" to maintain their "Assets"...

Then comes people who ask you "But will you always put the blame on the West, couldn't you have change your current situation by yourself?" and the answer is yes and no... and that's what happened/ Happening in MENA... People tried to surpass their own problems/Evil and they re paying the price... But the No comes when that same "Entity/West" is also playing a double game... By Encouraging both side of the conflict... and therefore making it a "Dead End".

And that the History of Human civilisations... One doesn't care for the other...as long as he doesn't benefit from it... and Right now... it is the case... whatever the country...whatever their "position" on the "Human Rightful scale"... Including the "Good Countries"...

Charity doesn't exist for "States"... it's an individual Human thing...

People tried to do something about it during the Arab Spring, and were successful in Tunisia, then in initially in Egypt, until they elected a moron which lost all popular support in less than a year,
and then they elected Mubarak rev 2.0. Egypt is fighting an insurgency in Sinai against guys that killed some kopts one week ago. They were not Muslims and should die.

Libya is infested with people that want to grab power. Not a lot of Libyan refugees,
but plenty of refugees trying to improve their personal economy by moving to the West.

In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shias are at each others throats, and minority religions has fled.
The conflict between KSA and Iran shows in Syria, and Yemen but refugees com8ng mostly from Syria.

In Afghanistan, civilians get killed if they do not comply with the wishes of th3 Taliban.
Plenty of refugees as a result.

There would be a lot less refugees, if the ME learned to compromise.

 

[HannibalBarca]

People tried to do something about it during the Arab Spring, and were successful in Tunisia, then in initially in Egypt, until they elected a moron which lost all popular support in less than a year,
and then they elected Mubarak rev 2.0. Egypt is fighting an insurgency in Sinai against guys that killed some kopts one week ago. They were not Muslims and should die.

Libya is infested with people that want to grab power. Not a lot of Libyan refugees,
but plenty of refugees trying to improve their personal economy by moving to the West.

In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shias are at each others throats, and minority religions has fled.
The conflict between KSA and Iran shows in Syria, and Yemen but refugees com8ng mostly from Syria.

In Afghanistan, civilians get killed if they do not comply with the wishes of th3 Taliban.
Plenty of refugees as a result.

There would be a lot less refugees, if the ME learned to compromise.

Compromise when each one of them are ideologically different is like playing chess in the dark...
And it's even more Difficult when each one of them got a "Western Sponsor" who's sponsors among themselves aren't compromising either...

The MENA is too much fragmented... Because of the previous "Events" in those past Centuries...
The only solution is to wait for someone to emerge and take a majority chunk from himself...

Till then... those revolt/Conflicts will be on Reboot constantly...

As for Tunisia...People should understand... that it's completely different... The Arab revolutions are BS... it was never meant for others... Only for TN... No one around was ready for it...no one...

The True "Arab Revolution/MENA Revolution" hasn't started yet...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Compromise when each one of them are ideologically different is like playing chess in the dark...
And it's even more Difficult when each one of them got a "Western Sponsor" who's sponsors among themselves aren't compromising either...

The MENA is too much fragmented... Because of the previous "Events" in those past Centuries...
The only solution is to wait for someone to emerge and take a majority chunk from himself...

Till then... those revolt/Conflicts will be on Reboot constantly...

As for Tunisia...People should understand... that it's completely different... The Arab revolutions are BS... it was never meant for others... Only for TN... No one around was ready for it...no one...

Compromising with someone who has a totally different point of view is the essence of politics.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Compromising with someone who has a totally different point of view is the essence of politics.

There is no politics When there is no Power of the people...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

There is no politics When there is no Power of the people...

There is always politics, since noone has absolute powers.
Maybe Stalin was close, but rumour has it he was strangled in the end.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It's not just the US, most countries can get away with anything. Look at North Korea's nukes for example. North Korea isn't exactly a superpower, but nobody cares enough to stop them.

It's just that the US is the most openly arrogant about it, just look at Donald Trump, he is an open pathological liar who has committed multiple serious crimes (such as paying his lawyer Cohen to subvert the election process) and nobody gives a flying crap.

 

[HannibalBarca]

There is always politics, since noone has absolute powers.
Maybe Stalin was close, but rumour has it he was strangled in the end.

Literally every MENA Leader had/Have absolute power...
Each one of them, Think to the be righfull/Eternal owner of that piece of land...
Each one of them, Think they deserve what the guy next door got...
Each one of them, Prefer to push their "Country" into flames instead of "Compromising" somthing...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Literally every MENA Leader had/Have absolute power...
Each one of them, Think to the be righfull/Eternal owner of that piece of land...
Each one of them, Think they deserve what the guy next door got...
Each one of them, Prefer to push their "Country" into flames instead of "Compromising" somthing...

Every leader has to make sure he is not overthrown, and has to bribe and threaten his close companions. Once he starts such informal negotiations he no longer has absolute power.

Assad does not have absolute power, I doubt he is really in charge like his father was.

Saddam relied on loyal Tiktritis.

KSA is a family business with internal opposition.

Iran. Several power centres including Republican Guards.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Every leader has to make sure he is not overthrown, and has to bribe and threaten his close companions. Once he starts such informal negotiations he no longer has absolute power.

Assad does not have absolute power, I doubt he is really in charge like his father was.

Saddam relied on loyal Tiktritis.

KSA is a family business with internal opposition.

Iran. Several power centres including Republican Guards.

Every power got their struggles... Absolute or not.
But there is a different btw "Internal and External" Affairs. Btw Power circle and The People...

One thing is sure... If "The Power" ask for it's military/Police to Murder his own people...They will...
The Moment you people is equal to the life of a Chicken... There is no compromise...Neither Politics.

 

[gambit]

Becos they are powerful and most of their foes are follies.

If you hate those imperialist, you shall allies with their rival. Like support China and Russia.

Let us stick with the 'get away with anything' theme for now.

Currently, there is NO ONE in the superpower ranks who can commit to an ally the way the US have and can, by that it means to be PHYSICALLY there when an ally needs help. The moral status of that ally is a different issue. The Soviet Union could, Russia could not, or at best to 1/3 of what we can do. China could not.

When an ally needs help, almost always that call for help is the result of an external threat, so a physical (military) presence that supports a diplomatic presence is a combination difficult to ignore by all sides. Everyone speaks of 'soft' and 'hard' powers, but equally important is the middle where the US laid the big stick on the table for all to see. That is compelling power. Call it a 'dick measuring' contest if it suits, but the harsh reality is whoever whips his out first -- usually compels others to do what he want.

We can whip ours out anywhere in the world where we have our allies and everyone in the immediate targeted region knows it, and we can do it in days at worst, if not hours at best. So an alliance with either Russia or China where neither can help when there is a need -- is not an attractive option.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Currently, there is NO ONE in the superpower ranks who can commit to an ally the way the US have and can, by that it means to be PHYSICALLY there when an ally needs help.

That's because there is no one else in the superpower ranks.

When a country does something you don't like, you can either do something about it (and suffer the consequences) or you can ignore it while making big statements about how they are bad. And more often than not, it's the second choice that occurs.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump does press the button in the end, as long as he and his family are safe in nuclear bunkers I doubt he cares much about what happens to anyone else. Textbook narcissist/sociopath, if he can see a benefit to himself and his family then there is no limit to what he might do, if he was convinced that he could rise from the ashes of nuclear armageddon as the founder/prophet of a new America then why not.

 

[gambit]

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump does press the button in the end,...

This -- sadly -- is more revealing of one's personal animosity against Trump than of any understanding of US politics. There is no such 'button' even figuratively. A US president cannot simply issue an order -- that figurative button -- for a nuclear strike and the US military blindly obeys. If deemed unlawful or even unnecessary in view of immediate international politics, the entire JCS would rebel before such an order could be issued.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This -- sadly -- is more revealing of one's personal animosity against Trump than of any understanding of US politics. There is no such 'button' even figuratively. A US president cannot simply issue an order -- that figurative button -- for a nuclear strike and the US military blindly obeys. If deemed unlawful or even unnecessary in view of immediate international politics, the entire JCS would rebel before such an order could be issued.

"Press the button" is more of a figurative term. What I meant is that I would not be surprised if Donald Trump started a war which escalated to the nuclear level... if he thought that he and his family would be safe in bunkers and would benefit from it in the aftermath.

Also, is this wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

"It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate a nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it."