TDPS: If "oppression" & "WMD" standards to intervene, why'd we ignore Egypt, still ignoring NKorea?

[celtics23]

Run time: 04:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2lIhs2UUlQ   Posted on YouTube: February 15, 2011 By YouTube Member: MidweekPolitics Views on YouTube: 275   Posted on DU: February 17, 2011 By DU Member: celtics23 Views on DU: 579

 
From: www.davidpakman.com | Subscription: www.davidpakman.com/membership | YouTube: www.youtube.com/midweekpolitics

David: And really, for all the talk about how wonderful this is and these oppressed people have finally risen up and they deserve this and this guy has been in power 30 years, it's been 30 years that we've barely heard a mention of Egypt, right? I mean, if we were... if the United States was really so concerned about the oppression and the fact that the average wage in Egypt is just over 2000 U.S. dollars a year, if we were really that concerned, instead of this feverish media conundrum now where media outlets don't even know what to say about Iraq, we would've heard some concern for, even a peep about the Egyptian people over the last 30 years. This has been going on longer than anybody in this room has even been alive.

Louis: Right. And I mean, unless you care to look it up yourself, we had no idea that they were that unhappy, right?

David: Well, that's also true. That's right. And we're-- by the way, that's not uncommon. We're hearing the same thing that we're hearing about Jordan now, well, Jordan, the situation in Jordan isn't great, but it's more of a friendly dictatorship, and the situation's not that bad. That's not the case. So don't be convinced that the reason we didn't-- we left this one for 30 years to the Egyptian people is because it just wasn't that bad.

Think about North Korea, by the way, and this brings me, we heard from Donald Rumsfeld in his new book "Known and Unknown", it's really the name of the book, I know it's hard to believe, he gave the different reasons why we went into Iraq. Last bonus show, we talked about him saying that he was a little bit confused about why George W. Bush was so concerned with Iraq right after 9/11. Forget that. Donald Rumsfeld still backs up what happened in Iraq, he says we thought the weapons were there, and this Saddam was a really bad guy.

So what we're hearing are two narratives. It's worth-- the U.S. goes into other countries when what? There is a threat or known weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, or number two, when the person in power is really bad and he's oppressive. Well, doesn't North Korea fit the bill there? North Korea, I mentioned on the show, I'm obsessed with these documentaries and I've been watching a bunch of these North Korea documentaries, in North Korea, we have both. We meet the test. We meet Donald Rumsfeld's test on both grounds. We have both oppression, significant oppression, kids are literally picking corn kernels up out of the mud in some of these prison camps, for lack of a better term, that exist. We have oppression, we have malnutrition, we have abuse. And we also know that North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons. But we're not going in there.

Louis: That's the question. Maybe if they had oil, maybe we'd consider it.

David: You're absolutely right. This comes down, ladies and gentlemen, to resources, it comes down to large corporations, and it comes to the inherent corruption and the fact that corporations own and buy and sell any aspect of government that they want. We're seeing it on the Supreme Court, we see it with war and these contractors, these mercenary contractors, why haven't we gone into North Korea if the Donald Rumsfeld test has been met? Well, there's no oil in North Korea, there's no significant agricultural potential, nor industry. Honestly, the war there, of course they might set off a nuclear bomb, but barring that, I think that the war would be, it just wouldn't be as profitable. There wouldn't be that many opportunities to send in the mercenary contractors to make billions and billions overcharging on a cost-plus contract the way we saw KBR do in Iraq. There's just no money in going into every single country where oppression and weapons of mass destruction exist. That's clear.

Louis: Right. If we have no stake in it, what's the point? I mean, I assume that if civil war breaks out, we will probably have to take some action, but other than that...

David: Well, by-- you mean between North and South Korea.

Louis: Right.

David: Yeah.

Louis: Other than that, I don't see it happening.



Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham and www.Subscriptorium.com. For transcripts, translations, captions, and subtitles, or for more information, visit www.Subscriptorium.com, or contact Alex at [e-mail].

[donthebun]

1. He gets to the crux...corruption, war profiteering

[tins0404]

2. No money in that war, plus we might lose