US Double Standards: the sequel

There’s an expression frequently used in the Muslim world to describe the west, it is the all too familiar words, ‘double standards’.

Speaking in London about the inflamed tensions between Mr Karzai and Islamabad, Mr Bush said “Obviously it’s a testy situation there… And if I’m the president of a country and people are coming from one country to another — allegedly coming from one country to another — to kill innocent civilians on my side, I’d be concerned about it. But we can help. We can help calm the situation down and develop a strategy that will prevent these extremists from, you know, from developing safe haven and having freedom of movement.”

I suppose the US strikes on Pakistani soil are different in the eyes of Mr. Bush and others who choose to stand behind him.

Yes obviously Mr Bush, it is a testy situation. And Pakistanis are concerned about it. But you can’t help because it is your government that’s the problem. And yes, Pakistanis can calm the situation and should develop a strategy that will prevent the ‘extremist US army’ from developing a safe haven in Pakistan and having the freedom of movement to kill their own people.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

4 responses to “US Double Standards: the sequel”

  1. MarkCh says :

    Well, if Pakistan would just prevent the Taliban from launching attacks from Pakistani territory into Afghanistan, I’m sure the US would not be launching strikes into Pakistan. In fact, if the Taliban had prevented Al Qaeda from attacking the US, using Afghanistan as a base, I am sure the US would never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place. The US doesn’t really have a double standard, in this case: they regard acts of war carried out from a country’s territory as if they were carried out by that country.

    What he is offering here is a way for Pakistan to say, “we really aren’t backing the Taliban, we just can’t stop them. Can you help us?”

  2. honestdebate says :

    are you suggesting that the US army has a right to attack civilians in Pakistan because the Pakistani government isn’t doing enough to fight the US’s war?

    The 9-11 attacks were condemned by a vast majority of Pakistanis. Pakistan had nothing to do with those attacks. Now the Pakistan army is fighting a war – which is not in its national interest.

    Why is it that when 2000 odd American lives are lost, the rest of the world has to fight America’s war but when hundreds and thousands of people are killed and tortured in Iraq, and other Muslim countries want to help the occupyees defend they are seen as harbouring terrorism?

    The US would never allow a foreign country to set up base on American soil – why is Pakistan expected to?

    You might also want to research into the US government’s interest in Afghanistan way before 9-11… they were looking for a reason to go in, 9-11 gave them that reason. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 – why are they there then?

    i would disagree – these are double standards.

  3. MarkCh says :

    Nobody should target civilians in war, and I am not an American. But if an act of war is launched against my country from another country, call it Country A, then my government has a right to carry out acts of war against Country A. This may well lead to civilians being hurt or killed. It makes no difference whether Country A’s government or people approve or disapprove of the initial act of war launched from their territory, although if they disapprove and are unable to exert effective control over their own territory, they may invite my country’s troops in to help them establish that control.

    Think about it: international relations can’t work any other way, as otherwise countries would have no incentive to stop “informal” attacks being launched from their territory. The whole point of the international state system is to make war an actual and legal monopoly of states themselves. Without that, the world will descend into anarchy and brigandage.

  4. honestdebate says :

    i agree, nobody should target civilians in war. but you seem to be looking at it from one side only. if every nation seeks its own interests, then why should pakistan be forced to fight a war that is not in its interest?

    i don’t know where you’re from, but if your country would suffer tremendously (political unrest, economic instability etc) then your own government wouldn’t take part in the war even if the ‘international community’ did.

    the western countries act upon interest and they don’t shy away from saying it either. the war is not about osama bin laden. the american government were looking for an excuse to go into Afghanistan wayyy before 9-11. Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11 why are they there?

    they’re acting on the national interest of the country (whether it’s proved to be in the interest or not is a matter of poor judgement). the criteria for foreign policy is and always has been self interest. why are other countries not allowed to consider their self interst first?

    this is double standards is it not?

    don’t know if you read my first post, ‘what’s important to you’. that pretty much explains my views on self interest in a fairly simple way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: