Where does the US stand on Bahrain?

asherbassad

The dictator of Bahrain keeps the majority of the population living in fear and poverty.
Last week the regime made the bizarre move of deleting the nationality of 31 pro-democracy advocates, a move that shocked human rights observers and which contravenes the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Pretty sinister.
The people of Bahrain are demanding very basic human rights but the dictatorship crushes their protests.
The US is silent on this and reporting on it in Western media is non-existent. Why is that?

flogging a dead horse

It depends if you belive in the worldview of interventionism, espoused by a few, most notably Kissinger.
Do you have the view that America and other NATO countries should be the world's 'policeman' and step-in too help so called democratic rebellions. One view against might be that the rebels are not that democratic. Another view with USA and NATO would why alway us and risk our millitary personel. Sanctions would often be seen as the best diplomatic soloution.
However in terms of supporting intervention, there is a certain belief of nipping it in the bud, as the situation could get much worse and the entire region with neighbouring countries becoming affected. With an entire region thrown into the chaos of a civil war within a region like Syria today.
Instability within Lebanon, Israel and Turkey. Such instability within neighbouring countries might support the viewpoint of intervention against any so-called 'tin pot' dictatorship.

cyberhog

asherbassad wrote: »

The people of Bahrain are demanding very basic human rights but the dictatorship crushes their protests.
The US is silent on this and reporting on it in Western media is non-existent. Why is that?

The United States have no problem supporting repressive regimes if it serves their interest. You see, Bahrain is strategically important for the US and if Bahrain's monarchy were to fall it would put a key military outpost in jeopardy.

Read more at the link.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/14/peter-goodspeed-unrest-in-bahrain-could-threaten-key-u-s-military-outpost/

asherbassad

flogging a dead horse wrote: »

It depends if you belive in the worldview of interventionism, espoused by a few, most notably Kissinger.
Do you have the view that America and other NATO countries should be the world's 'policeman' and step-in too help so called democratic rebellions. One view against might be that the rebels are not that democratic. Another view with USA and NATO would why alway us and risk our millitary personel. Sanctions would often be seen as the best diplomatic soloution.
However in terms of supporting intervention, there is a certain belief of nipping it in the bud, as the situation could get much worse and the entire region with neighbouring countries becoming affected. With an entire region thrown into the chaos of a civil war within a region like Syria today.
Instability within Lebanon, Israel and Turkey. Such instability within neighbouring countries might support the viewpoint of intervention against any so-called 'tin pot' dictatorship.

You ask valid questions....only problem that I have with your angle is that the US spends and extraordinary amount of blood and treasure on foreign adventures that turn out to be nothing that they initially screamed about.
For example....let's look at Iraq....it was initially about WMD...even though there wasn't a sniff of truth behind this. And when it all became clear that this was a hoax, a new excuse was invented....cue "ladies and gentlemen, we got him!" ..... now if you were to go back to 2002 and someone said to you....we're going to invade a country, kill over 1 million people, displace 5 million of them, spend nearly 3 trillion dollars, lose 5000 troops and have in excess of 300,000 wounded to topple a guy who is persecuting his people, would you have said "FCUK YEAH! ....Let's do this!!" ? Because anyone with half a brain knew that this was going to be the outcome of a con job.
But even if you are to think that the whole thing was a mistake and that through the course of this whole hoax as Hillary Clinton was gazing into the cameras and saying "Afghan women are now freeeeeee" (don't make me laugh) wouldn't you expect a little latitude here?

You see, you're making the classic mistake into thinking that America is picking the regimes that it wants to fcuk with but can't fcuk with them all.
How about this....how about America leaves alone the regimes that it spends billions in lives and treasure fcuking and actually not shed any blood at all just damning the regimes that it's propping up for profit.

It'd be cheaper.

asherbassad

flogging a dead horse wrote: »

It depends if you belive in the worldview of interventionism, espoused by a few, most notably Kissinger.
Do you have the view that America and other NATO countries should be the world's 'policeman' and step-in too help so called democratic rebellions. One view against might be that the rebels are not that democratic. Another view with USA and NATO would why alway us and risk our millitary personel. Sanctions would often be seen as the best diplomatic soloution.
However in terms of supporting intervention, there is a certain belief of nipping it in the bud, as the situation could get much worse and the entire region with neighbouring countries becoming affected. With an entire region thrown into the chaos of a civil war within a region like Syria today.
Instability within Lebanon, Israel and Turkey. Such instability within neighbouring countries might support the viewpoint of intervention against any so-called 'tin pot' dictatorship.

This is some serious waffle.
You mention "so called" democratic rebellions. Well, if people in a certain parts of the world are denied basic human rights and the leaders routinely violate certain HR charters, don't you think the so-called champions of global democracy should have this in the forefront of their mouthpiece instead of having us try to find out about what's happening all by ourselves?

The US screamed blue murder about a persecuted lesbian in Iran (and it wasn't a mistake...they planted the story themselves and it backfired), yet they don't say "boo" about Saudi women not being allowed to vote/drive and about them being stoned to death for adultery.

I could go on but in all honesty it doesn't matter anymore. It probably held some sway 15 years ago but now when the US opens it's mouth, nobody even listens. Mostly they just roll their eyes or laugh.
The US is not taken seriously anymore. How could it be? When the US screams that a few of their troops have been paraded on camera after having been captured in Iranian waters yet then turns around and pardons their own soldiers for raping girls or urinating on corpses.....then who the fcuk would even listen to what comes out of their mouths.

Jude13

If you are interested in Bahrain, which is a lovely little country in my opinion (not the way it's run but the actual place). Read up on the 'Butcher of Bahrain'. You will soon realise that the question should be where does the UK stand..

There is a large US and UK military pressance there. As another poster alluded too the ring leaders are either from another country with a varying belief in Islam or people who are not from Bahrain and have recently gained citizenship. Would any government entertain violent demonstrations from these groups? I am not jsutifying their response but it just opens the mind a bit.

In addition to the foregoing this is not on the scale of Egypt or Syria in relation to the majority of citizens wanting change.

who the fug

Jude13 wrote: »

If you are interested in Bahrain, which is a lovely little country in my opinion (not the way it's run but the actual place). Read up on the 'Butcher of Bahrain'. .

Is he still alive, thought he died a few years back

Jonny7

There is broad media coverage of Bahrain, US criticism is fairly muted, although the state department does sporadically direct strong criticism their way. The US has ties and large bases there. Same as Uzbekistan.

The uprising in Bahrain was significantly dwarfed by those elsewhere. The king reacted with a mixture of oppression and reform, more of the former really.