Thursday, May 15, 2014

Morally, What Does the US Stand For?

Dambisa Moyo |is calling for U.S. intervention in Nigeria, which I have a problem with (SEE: Why I Do Not Plan to Head to Nigeria to #BringBackOurGirls), but she does seem to get what the Empire is really all about:
It is na├»ve to ignore the mounting evidence that, beyond considering its own strategic and national self-interest, the United States does not have an operating philosophy when it comes to defending human rights. Its decision to remain silent after Egypt’s democratically elected President was overthrown in a coup last year, and its long standing engagement with countries like Saudi Arabia whose cultural ethos/philosophy , in many respects, runs counter to American beliefs, underscore the schism between what America claims to stand for and what it actually does in practice.

Indeed, these choices are a far cry from America, the brand – the moral torchbearer and defender of human rights, of fairness and justice, and above all, of what is good and decent. That was the America I was taught to believe in when I, myself, was a young girl in boarding school in Africa. But it is not the one I recognize today
And it must be made clear that the U.S. operates for the strategic, self-interest of the U.S. elites and not for the majority of the people in the U.S..


  1. Ms Moyo is free to personally demonstrate her enthusiasm for the cause in Nigeria. Pack your bags, lady.

  2. Crappy situation to see atrocities in places we have no business interfering with - probably a lot of that around the globe. BUT if we can use drones, electronic surveillance, or other unmanned technology to find the girls, I'd have no objection. Africa has some mineral resources that could be useful - maybe we should be more involved - the Chinese are - maybe we are too late?

    1. Yes - drones and surveillance are OK as long as interesting resources are around. Got it.

      Are you sure you're in the right blog?