ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Should the West, Change its Tactics?

Updated on June 27, 2011

The West

The Present

OK, what do I mean?

The west sends its troops to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, supposedly for human rights issues. The Governments are treating their people bad.

OK, Iraq first. This was probably really about the control of their oil. If it was, then they were probably successful but as for the human rights side: they still have trouble with the Kurds and insurgents from Iran, so are they better off?

Now we come to Afghanistan. Was this really about their untapped minerals? If it was, then the west has lost all around. When the west pulls out, the Afghans will once again return to the tribal kind of leadership that they have had for hundreds of years. The difference here is that: whilst the west has been spending money and lives, defending the so called “human rights”, China, without a bullet being fired, has stepped in with investments in mining and railroads. They are the only victor in this conflict.

Is the west using human rights as an excuse to wage war in order to get countries to accept their investments? I ask this because I didn’t see them step into the Sudan or Angola when mass genocide was taking place.Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the Middle East, yet not even a mention of sanctions on them. Why not? Because they freely accept trade with the west, we buy their oil; they buy our munitions and infrastructures. No problem and not a whisper about human rights.


The Future

Should the west now try the Chinese tactics? What are those?

China does not concern themselves with a countries human rights record. Some say: How could they, given their own. That is not the point. The point is they just get on with business and in Afghanistan and Africa it has worked.

If the west kept their troops at home more, would more countries be prepared to accept their investment?

Currently, the west is rattling sabers with Iran and North Korea. Iran only accepts Russian investments and North Korea, Chinas.

So, you ask, what would happen to those poor countries human rights if we don’t intervene?

History shows that countries only really change for the better, when it is an internal change. England, France, Russia, China and more recently Tunisia and Egypt are all examples of this. Foreign intervention rarely solves the problems in the long term.

Should we blame China for doing what they are doing? No, they are just doing what we want to do, except they are currently being more successful at it and will soon become the second biggest economy in the world.

So, should the west rethink its strategy: Keeping the soldiers home more and sending investors abroad more?

Change Tactics

Should the West now move along similar lines to China, for seeking investments

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      mib56789 6 years ago

      Dear Credence2 via rafken - God gave you a voice. Speak freely and let it be heard. "Freedom is a voice. Freedom is a song. Freedom is a spirit of a people who are strong."

      God bless America.

      (The video starts in one language and ends in a English.)

    • Credence2 profile image

      Credence2 6 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

      mib56789, thanks for contributing to this thread. The use of the term hypocrisy/double standards is made evident more within the hub that had I hyperlinked in a previous post. The motivation and consequently the decision making process regarding the use of the military goes far beyond "defense". I guess that this belief of mine applies to this current scenario as presented by rafken.

    • profile image

      mib56789 6 years ago

      Dear rafken, Credence2's use of the phrase "fool's errand" is most appropriate. I just don't use the term "fool" myself for religious reasons. The word "bankrupt" that he uses is also applicable. But I'm not sure "hypocrisy" is always the driver. That speaks to the heart of the individuals making the decisions. The outcomes or results I can easily see. But vipers or patriots or idiots (my word for "fool") - I suppose "by their fruits you shall know them".

    • Credence2 profile image

      Credence2 6 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

      Rafken, I have touched on these issues of hypocrisy in many of my hubs. This need for military responses are as much economic and political. The changes that are desired in Afghanistan and other parts of the world cannot be at the point of a gun. We failed to learn from Vietnam that there are limits to America's military power. We bankrupt ourselves with defense outlays while everyone else focuses on their economies. As Defense Secy. Gates said not to long ago, when addressing NATO,it must be made clear that we are not going to provide all the manpower and material for every global crisis. What we are involved in in this world is a fools errand. Not really a plug but additional food for thought:

      Thanks again Cred2

    • profile image

      mib56789 6 years ago

      You're a very serious thinker. The question is not "Should they". The question is "Will they". And the answer is "NO. They won't." Unless we all end up in Thunderdome there won't be any radical change in Western thinking! Maybe a few minor adjustments here and there. Bu that's just for "testing purposes". Another good HUB, rafken!

    • rafken profile image

      rafken 6 years ago from The worlds my oyster

      Stump - I hear you. Thanks for dropping by.

    • Stump Parrish profile image

      Stump Parrish 6 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

      The belief that we went into Iraq to protect human rights falls kind of flat when you consider the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's we killed in order to protect their human rights. The only right they had was to die for the betterment of America. Where was the concern for their rights when Bush Sr. intentionally bombed power facilities amd water purification plants? Where was the concern for their human rights when sanctions were put in place that prohibited the importation of chemicals that would have helped purify their drinking water? America claims to be concerned with human rights and yet, our actions prove just the opposite.

      If America kept her troops at home and quit invading every country that has something they feel is their right to take, more countries wouldn't hold onto the hatred they have for this country.

      If America would quit killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world for profit, the world might just be a little more accepting of our presence and our investments. Who wants to accept investments from a country that will more than likely kill a large portion of of their citizens? How many of the countries involved in terrorist stlye attacks against America, are simply retaliating for the killing of thousands of their fellow citizens? The fact that most Americans either forget this reality or simply ignore it, doesn't change the fact.