Angry Rant #20: So...there's nothing to gain?

I've just been watching all the reports on Egypt. I mean ALL of them. Revolutions on a scale as large as this interest me greatly.

But I noticed something. And no, it wasn't the shameless plug that Nine News did for Underbelly, (even though that pissed me off) but the reports from all our supposed "World Leaders" who are supporting the people who have revolted against the government.

Which is pharoh-nough.

But didn't the same thing happen in Iraq? Isn't that the reason why the US jumped in to "save" the day? Isn't that why Aussie soliders and getting killed in Afghanistan from IEDs?

Then we hear how these massive protests will have negative effect on the Egyptian economy - an economy based on toursim. Would I be so cynical to think that because Egypt is not exactly rich in natural resources, that this is the reason why none of our "World Leaders" haven't jumped in and put a stop to this Military Dictatorship that's been happening over the past 30 years? 

This just brings out the obvious answer though - any western country *cough* the U.S. *cough* who has nothing to potentially gain from "saving" the people or saving their own arses, won't commit to helping. They'll sit there, sipping there soy lattés, and let the people rip themselves apart. Even the damn UN Secretary-General is supporting people.  

Talk it up. 

The United States is nation that is dependent on energy. It has so many people and cars and needs to provide so much power to so many people that it will only "save" countries that will potentially help them - much like the International Monterey Fund with it's 'We'll-lend-poor-countries-money-only-if-they-invest-that-money-back-onto-western-economies'.

It's just a given that if the U.S. doesn't see any way for it to benefit from invading a country, then it won't and neither will we.

This guy takes the same approach.

But I guess everyone isn't as cynical as I am.

Don't believe the Lies and Spin.