My issue is American hegemony - I'm agin it. The idea that this nation should dictate policy/morality or anything else to the rest of the world is - in my opinion - wrong.
I know.
Moderation in everything (including meddling in other countries' affairs) is my motto.
I'm neither a pacifist nor a non-interventionist. I'm a pragmatist.
One of the few voices of reason regarding foreign policy in the Middle East over the last couple of decades has been William Odom. In his widely read essay regarding the debacle of Bush 43's invasion of Iraq, he stated the obvious: "we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East". Rhetorically drawing "red lines" and implying that you are considering unilateral military action or other involvement on your own is not wise.
I agree with Odom that we need to abandon a Middle East foreign policy based primarily on "unilateralism", or deciding to go it alone. The alternative approach that actually works is well documented and described in Odom's paper, "American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It.
My issue is American hegemony - I'm agin it. The idea that this nation should dictate policy/morality or anything else to the rest of the world is - in my opinion - wrong.
I'm neither a pacifist nor a non-interventionist. I'm a pragmatist.
One of the few voices of reason regarding foreign policy in the Middle East over the last couple of decades has been William Odom. In his widely read essay regarding the debacle of Bush 43's invasion of Iraq, he stated the obvious: "we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East". Rhetorically drawing "red lines" and implying that you are considering unilateral military action or other involvement on your own is not wise.
I agree with Odom that we need to abandon a Middle East foreign policy based primarily on "unilateralism", or deciding to go it alone. The alternative approach that actually works is well documented and described in Odom's paper, "American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It.
It does, but there has been noise made about chemical weapons being a 'game changer'.
But more to the point, what should we (not 'Obama' or 'Congress', but WE) do in Syria? Bomb somebody? Who? Put troops on the ground? Where? Enact economic sanctions? Who would that hurt, or influence?
We have utterly abdicated any moral authority in the region. The CIA has finally admitted it overthrew a democratically-elected leader in Iran. How did that work out? We armed Afghani freedom fighters against the Russians, and created a lawless country where the worst terrorist attack in US history was planned. We went to war in Iraq based on a pack of fabrications. That's working out just peachy too.
Who are we supposed to support now, in Syria, or Egypt? The administration responsible for slaughtering over a hundred thousand people so far, or the anti-American Islamists? Choose carefully now, because our decisions are going to haunt us for decades.
There are no good answers. Heck, there aren't really any 'answers' period.
it's a bad situation for sure
of course the answer for us is more war
i did see a video of analyst trying to determine the type of chems used and if the symptoms he saw were consistent with sarin
he said some looked legit, some not so legit (according to video from the hospital)
for instance he said someone foaming at the mouth from sarin would have a fine yellowish foam with possible blood
the victims in the video he was watching at that moment were not like that (white foam big bubbles no blood)
It does, but there has been noise made about chemical weapons being a 'game changer'.
But more to the point, what should we (not 'Obama' or 'Congress', but WE) do in Syria? Bomb somebody? Who? Put troops on the ground? Where? Enact economic sanctions? Who would that hurt, or influence?
We have utterly abdicated any moral authority in the region. The CIA has finally admitted it overthrew a democratically-elected leader in Iran. How did that work out? We armed Afghani freedom fighters against the Russians, and created a lawless country where the worst terrorist attack in US history was planned. We went to war in Iraq based on a pack of fabrications. That's working out just peachy too.
Who are we supposed to support now, in Syria, or Egypt? The administration responsible for slaughtering over a hundred thousand people so far, or the anti-American Islamists? Choose carefully now, because our decisions are going to haunt us for decades.
There are no good answers. Heck, there aren't really any 'answers' period.
Exactly. The answer is to stop meddling in the affairs of others and mind our own business.
It does, but there has been noise made about chemical weapons being a 'game changer'.
But more to the point, what should we (not 'Obama' or 'Congress', but WE) do in Syria? Bomb somebody? Who? Put troops on the ground? Where? Enact economic sanctions? Who would that hurt, or influence?
We have utterly abdicated any moral authority in the region. The CIA has finally admitted it overthrew a democratically-elected leader in Iran. How did that work out? We armed Afghani freedom fighters against the Russians, and created a lawless country where the worst terrorist attack in US history was planned. We went to war in Iraq based on a pack of fabrications. That's working out just peachy too.
Who are we supposed to support now, in Syria, or Egypt? The administration responsible for slaughtering over a hundred thousand people so far, or the anti-American Islamists? Choose carefully now, because our decisions are going to haunt us for decades.
There are no good answers. Heck, there aren't really any 'answers' period.
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the Obama, or American Imperialism thread. This lady clearly dislikes U.S. foreign policy in general not just Obama, but I put it in here because I completely agree with her assessment on Syria.
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the Obama, or American Imperialism thread. This lady clearly dislikes U.S. foreign policy in general not just Obama, but I put it in here because I completely agree with her assessment on Syria.
We don't need unrest anywhere IMO. Unrest translates into death by violence in these regions I mentiond. I cannot advocate for that at all. But that is the way they do things over there. Time TGTFO of there, period. Our national security is not at stake in Syria. Is Canada's ? Or is Canada's national security tied directly to the US's ?
Nobody needs unrest or oppression for that matter. Yes, people get hurt or worse during unrest. I'm pretty sure some people got hurt while "you" fought for your independence. Canada's national security is indeed tied to the US.
Your country is energy indepedent. Ours can be if we want to be. With energy independence, the US can tell the rest of the world to Eff off. But we have to secure our borders or it won't mean a thing. Our Bystander In Chief wrote a political check his ass can't cash and had no plan for when that check he wrote a year ago came due. He drew a redline, it has been met. Now what ? We get sucked into a civil war that restarts the Cold War with the USSR Russia on the other side of our side ? The head of the KGB is running their show. We have a community organizer singing kumbya or however you write it running ours. I wonder what the odds in Vegas are on this one ? Sorry, as things stand this minute, my money is on Putin. Where's yours ?
Do you want Canada getting involved or the US or both ?
Drill for peace ... Edit: just take the above at face value. no snark or baiting intended. just straight forward thoughts from a very tired person.
Canada is not my country (yet) either. Nor is it energy independent. It imports plenty of oil (it's hovered around 50% for some time, while exporting a lot too at an incredible expense to the environment, but I'm not sure where it's at currently).
No, I'd rather not see Canada get involved in Syria directly. As for the US, it's sort of in your DNA to get involved in other people's business, but ultimately that's primarily (though not exclusively) your business, as are the consequences. Though there is of course a difference between rhetoric and actual (economic) interests. It's not all about getting energy or other important resources, it's also about marketing (creating markets to sell stuff).
As for the so-called "red line", I'll believe it when we get to see solid evidence of the use of WMDs. We've heard that one before, no?
