Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
All successive British governments have only backed revolutions, as long as they think there'll be something in it for them.
They were still supporting Mubarak until it was clear he'd lost. Then it was jolly well done you protesters.
Brtitish governments have supported Egypt for years, despite it being a police state, with one of the worst human rights records on the planet.
|
Maybe British governments supported Mubarak because that was the stance taken by their buddies in Washington
... you know, those wonderful folks who gave us the Contras. Quite a lot of US made military hardware is on display in the videos.
Forget about Obama's rhetoric, the US was quite content to have dictators in control. It gave a measure of stability to a volatile region; and the most important thing one wants in a country which is a major source of oil is stability. The reason that the US buys most of its oil from Canada is not the quality, nor the environmental friendliness of its extraction, but the fact that,politically, we are rock-solid stable. And do not British governments have a long history of supporting any government which is friendly to its interests? In this world, oil talks, BS walks. The BS in this case are the pronouncements of western leaders about the attempts of the entrenched to resist popular protests. What they are really thinking is: "How will all this affect the supply of oil"?
But in response to the thread question: I think that the British people should protest in the way that we and the Americans do, and this corresponds to the intent of the First Ammendment to the US Constitution. [Parliament] shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.