Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
There is a real reason that factions in America want Assad to be deposed. So far we haven't heard it yet.
There is a real reason that factions in America want Assad to be deposed. So far we haven't heard it yet.
That seems awfully consecratory.
After working within the government I have come to the conclusion that the government is nearly incapable of being consecratory. They are horrendous at keeping secrets.
So Congress is aware and has approved of the big picture ? Maybe for shits and giggles they could share it with everyone ( or would that fuck up their re election plans ?)
it depends on what you're addressing...foreign policy is the executive branches patch....and if for example obama does what he did like not not conforming with the war powers act ala Libya, congress will have to deal with it....they didn't do much then ...so, I doubt they will if he evokes say a no fly zone etc. now....
I'll make this point one more time- obama doesn't have a real FP....he started with the idea that he had to atone or make amends to the world for our 'past' because America apparently is not and has not been a force of good, but one that threw its weight around and needed to step back, ( example- his hostile policy vis a vis Israel) now, thats not a judgment, just a comment on his policy, the problem with that is it isn't a policy, shit happens as we see, so hes lost.
What he and say carter didn't understand till to late is we have to employ self interested FP, and like it or not- thats part of the job, when you don't you watch has other world actors make their moves and we play catch up becasue we have neutered ourselves. Pre- world war 2 sitting back may have been an option, since then its not.
Example- watch, we will almost certainly have to come down on Al Sisi and the generals side in Egypt, in effect, we will just be returning to Mubarak Egypt minus Mubarak and all thats happened since we threw him under the bus, and what will happen as to live lost and chaos will have been for what exactly? Zero. Same with the shah vis a vis Islamic clerics running Iran ..Obama picked up where Carter left off in this sense because his world view was limited to the belief that we were the reason international tumult occurred ..the world doesnt stand still because we opt, to opt out .
Refusing to assist in the overthrow of Assad is far from opting out. If you claim that it's part of the bigger picture that includes Iran perhaps that should be explained to people BEFORE they vote on their representatives to Congress. It's no wonder people claim conspiracy when they see things like this. Obama runs against Bush's foreign policy and then turns right around and repeats it ?
and
The official said the U.S. intelligence community based its assessment, which was given to the White House, on ‘‘the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured’’ and witness accounts.
The official said the White House believes the Syrian government had denied a U.N. investigative team immediate access to the site of a reported Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs, in order to give the evidence of the attack time to degrade.
The official said the regime’s continuing shelling of the site also further corrupts any available evidence of the attack.
On Sunday morning, Syrian State TV announced the regime would allow U.N. inspectors to visit the site, but the Obama administration official said a belated decision to grant access to the U.N. team would be considered ‘‘too late to be credible.’’
US official: chemical weapons likely used in Syria - News Nation Washington - Boston.com
so, there it is, they never would have said this unless they were sure.
While although this is true, we can't be sure WHICH side used them, they were used on civilians. They could have just as well been used by the terrorists as by the Assad government.
Come on now, which would make more sense? Why would the Syrian forces attack civilians with nerve gas, does that make ANY sense? The government knows it would incur the wrath of the US and NATO and bring in the allies, actively on the side of their opponents.
Or would it make more sense for the Syrian opposition and their terrorist allies to do this, knowing that if they can convince the world, Doctors with out borders, and Americans, that the regime in power did this, that Airstrikes and Air support would soon be in the offing?
The current regime has NOTHING to gain and everything to lose. The rebels have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
In fact, there is, on tape, more circumstantial proof to the contrary.
For NATO and the US, launching attacks at this point might well be a deadly mistake, as both the Russians and Chinese have warned the U.S. to not get involved. The Syrians have adequately covered their bases. Washington's attempts to intervene, it seems, have been foiled again. They might intervene under false pretexts, but then they will be gambling to see if the Russians and Chinese are will to start a shooting war over Syria.
Two phone calls affirm the use of chemical weapons in Homs by terrorists
http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/08/23/498717.htm
Damascus, (SANA) - A phone call between a terrorist affiliated to the so-called "Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion" in Homs and his boss who was called Adulbasit from Saudi Arabia uncovered that terrorists used the chemical weapons in Deir Ballba in Homs countryside.
During a phone call broadcast on the Syrian TV Channel, the terrorist said that his group which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, adding that they needed to buy weapons to attack the City of Homs.
The Saudi financier who was present in Cairo asked the Syrian terrorists about details on his group and the way they will receive the money, admitting his support to terrorists in Daraa and Damascus Countryside, in turn the Syria terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his "Battalion" was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.
In the same context, another phone call reveled the cooperation between tow terrorist groups to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus.
B. Mousa / Mazen
While although this is true, we can't be sure WHICH side used them, they were used on civilians. They could have just as well been used by the terrorists as by the Assad government.
So Congress is aware and has approved of the big picture ? Maybe for shits and giggles they could share it with everyone ( or would that fuck up their re election plans ?)
it depends on what you're addressing...foreign policy is the executive branches patch....and if for example obama does what he did like not not conforming with the war powers act ala Libya, congress will have to deal with it....they didn't do much then ...so, I doubt they will if he evokes say a no fly zone etc. now....
I'll make this point one more time- obama doesn't have a real FP....he started with the idea that he had to atone or make amends to the world for our 'past' because America apparently is not and has not been a force of good, but one that threw its weight around and needed to step back, ( example- his hostile policy vis a vis Israel) now, thats not a judgment, just a comment on his policy, the problem with that is it isn't a policy, shit happens as we see, so hes lost.
What he and say carter didn't understand till to late is we have to employ self interested FP, and like it or not- thats part of the job, when you don't you watch has other world actors make their moves and we play catch up becasue we have neutered ourselves. Pre- world war 2 sitting back may have been an option, since then its not.
Example- watch, we will almost certainly have to come down on Al Sisi and the generals side in Egypt, in effect, we will just be returning to Mubarak Egypt minus Mubarak and all thats happened since we threw him under the bus, and what will happen as to live lost and chaos will have been for what exactly? Zero. Same with the shah vis a vis Islamic clerics running Iran ..Obama picked up where Carter left off in this sense because his world view was limited to the belief that we were the reason international tumult occurred ..the world doesnt stand still because we opt, to opt out .
I think that the fatal flaw with this though is that the opposite is also true the world does not stop operating because we opt out as well. Take your Egypt example you act as though us stepping in is NECESSARY for that nation to stabilize. That is silly and I rather think the exact opposite is true. The more we meddle, the more that governments are not set up in accordance with the people and they look to us as aggressors meddling in their affairs that we have no right to do. In all honesty, I dont think anyone wants to totally opt out anyway. There is more to it than that. We still need to be on the world stage BUT we do not need to be standing up governments, blowing governments up or arming random rebel factions. That has turned out EXTREMELY poor for us in the past.
The world does not descend into chaos because we opt out. That is an incredible arrogant view, dont you think?
BUT we do not need to be standing up governments, blowing governments up or arming random rebel factions. That has turned out EXTREMELY poor for us in the past.
Yet now we are going to assist an AQ affiliate to over run Syria ? Apparently there is another agenda going on here that the American people aren't being apprised of. Shocking.
I already explained why its probably best inho and I also said I doubt al nusra would take the whole country.
think big picture.
I get the fact that there is a big picture alright. Who planned this all out and has Congress ok'd it or is this just more evidence that the American people have no say in what happens anymore ?
I'm pretty sure it's the latter.
It seemed implied by the way you were talking about how were likely to HAVE to step in again and reassert essentially the same government that just was removed. I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.Take your Egypt example you act as though us stepping in is NECESSARY for that nation to stabilize.
were did I say that?
Not always but I am not relying on this example. They are all over the place. We regularly back dictators or rebels. Saddam was OUR man until we decided that he wasnt. So was the Taliban. That turned out pretty damn bad and much of that hostility existed because they felt we abandoned them. What did we gain out of supporting Saddam? As far as I am concerned, nothing. It usually is a matter of the evil that you know. Personally, I dont see how we can tout the moral ideal of government for and by the people when we are across the planet trying to ensure the people give us the government that we want.BUT we do not need to be standing up governments, blowing governments up or arming random rebel factions. That has turned out EXTREMELY poor for us in the past.
yes, we do, and no it hasn't always turned out badly. please don't use this event ( in the overall era since ww2) as some barometer of past and the future...we don't even know how its gong to turn out yet.
I never claimed that we did worse by the world or that we ever act in anything but self-interest. Those were never my contentions. My contention is that it is NOT working out to our best interest. It hurts us and NOT only in the obvious ways. I think there is a reason that we are targets for terrorist organizations. I think it has a lot to do with having our fingers all over the planet in affairs that we simply do not belong in. Further, we have problems at home and are broke. We live in a nation that spends almost a third of its TOTAL expenditures on military. Do you think that is a positive? If not, where do you think all that money goes? It certainly is not because we have such massive standing forces here. It is directly related to the fact that we place out men and women in uniform all over the world in conflicts that range from outright war with America to civil wars within nations.Geo-political is and always has been a dirty biz. in that everyone jockeys for themselves overall.... the old saw is just as true today as it was when Clausewitz said it ( and before he said it as well;
"one being that war is the continuation of politics by other means."
And the reverse is certainly true.
Look, I am not going go deep into the weed here, its actually very simple- every nation is first- self interested, first and always, second, there is no reason why would should not be either. third, on balance since ww2, we have imho been 'more good' and have imputed 'more good' than bad.
It seemed implied by the way you were talking about how were likely to HAVE to step in again and reassert essentially the same government that just was removed. I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.Take your Egypt example you act as though us stepping in is NECESSARY for that nation to stabilize.
were did I say that?
Not always but I am not relying on this example. They are all over the place. We regularly back dictators or rebels. Saddam was OUR man until we decided that he wasnt. So was the Taliban. That turned out pretty damn bad and much of that hostility existed because they felt we abandoned them. What did we gain out of supporting Saddam? As far as I am concerned, nothing. It usually is a matter of the evil that you know. Personally, I dont see how we can tout the moral ideal of government for and by the people when we are across the planet trying to ensure the people give us the government that we want.yes, we do, and no it hasn't always turned out badly. please don't use this event ( in the overall era since ww2) as some barometer of past and the future...we don't even know how its gong to turn out yet.
Look, the basic fact of the matter is that I believe we should be dealing with the nations as they have set themselves up rather than getting so damn politically involved in making sure that the government they have is the one that we want. When that fails we end up with a government that starts out overtly hostile to us after all we were supporting their opposition. I doubt that you think that this is the first example of that possibility; you are too smart for that.
When we go to war for the good of the people we fail. When we go to war to defeat the enemy we succeed. Further, we are involved all over the place and we do not need to be that involved in other nations.
I never claimed that we did worse by the world or that we ever act in anything but self-interest. Those were never my contentions. My contention is that it is NOT working out to our best interest. It hurts us and NOT only in the obvious ways. I think there is a reason that we are targets for terrorist organizations. I think it has a lot to do with having our fingers all over the planet in affairs that we simply do not belong in. Further, we have problems at home and are broke. We live in a nation that spends almost a third of its TOTAL expenditures on military. Do you think that is a positive? If not, where do you think all that money goes? It certainly is not because we have such massive standing forces here. It is directly related to the fact that we place out men and women in uniform all over the world in conflicts that range from outright war with America to civil wars within nations.Geo-political is and always has been a dirty biz. in that everyone jockeys for themselves overall.... the old saw is just as true today as it was when Clausewitz said it ( and before he said it as well;
"one being that war is the continuation of politics by other means."
And the reverse is certainly true.
Look, I am not going go deep into the weed here, its actually very simple- every nation is first- self interested, first and always, second, there is no reason why would should not be either. third, on balance since ww2, we have imho been 'more good' and have imputed 'more good' than bad.
The rest of the world gets along VERY well internationally without doing anything even close to what we do. How does England and Germany exist without such a forceful and overbearing foreign presence? How does France and Italy do it? The reality is that we do not need to be doing this for every industrial nation on the planet. IF such things are as necessary as you seem to think then the rest of the world needs to get a little more involved and we need to back off. Simply put, it is costing us to damn much and there are better things that we can be doing with those resources than standing up Middle Eastern sand pits that have no hope of a true and stable government.
Oh boy I have rambled on, havent I.
It seemed implied by the way you were talking about how were likely to HAVE to step in again and reassert essentially the same government that just was removed. I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.Take your Egypt example – you act as though us stepping in is NECESSARY for that nation to stabilize.
were did I say that?
Not always but I am not relying on this example. They are all over the place. We regularly back dictators or rebels. Saddam was OUR man until we decided that he wasn’t. So was the Taliban. That turned out pretty damn bad and much of that hostility existed because they felt we abandoned them. What did we gain out of supporting Saddam? As far as I am concerned, nothing. It usually is a matter of the evil that you know. Personally, I don’t see how we can tout the moral ideal of government for and by the people when we are across the planet trying to ensure the people give us the government that we want.I never said stepped in or step in
yes, we do, and no it hasn't always turned out badly. please don't use this event ( in the overall era since ww2) as some barometer of past and the future...we don't even know how its gong to turn out yet.
Look, the basic fact of the matter is that I believe we should be dealing with the nations as they have set themselves up rather than getting so damn politically involved in making sure that the government they have is the one that we want. When that fails we end up with a government that starts out overtly hostile to us – after all we were supporting their opposition. I doubt that you think that this is the first example of that possibility; you are too smart for that.
When we go to war ‘for the good of the people’ we fail. When we go to war to defeat the enemy we succeed. Further, we are involved all over the place and we do not need to be that involved in other nations.
I never claimed that we did worse by the world or that we ever act in anything but self-interest. Those were never my contentions. My contention is that it is NOT working out to our best interest. It hurts us and NOT only in the obvious ways. I think there is a reason that we are targets for terrorist organizations. I think it has a lot to do with having our fingers all over the planet in affairs that we simply do not belong in. Further, we have problems at home and are broke. We live in a nation that spends almost a third of its TOTAL expenditures on military. Do you think that is a positive? If not, where do you think all that money goes? It certainly is not because we have such massive standing forces here. It is directly related to the fact that we place out men and women in uniform all over the world in conflicts that range from outright war with America to civil wars within nations.Geo-political is and always has been a dirty biz. in that everyone jockeys for themselves overall.... the old saw is just as true today as it was when Clausewitz said it ( and before he said it as well;
"one being that war is the continuation of politics by other means."
And the reverse is certainly true.
Look, I am not going go deep into the weed here, its actually very simple- every nation is first- self interested, first and always, second, there is no reason why would should not be either. third, on balance since ww2, we have imho been 'more good' and have imputed 'more good' than bad.
The rest of the world gets along VERY well internationally without doing anything even close to what we do. How does England and Germany exist without such a forceful and overbearing foreign presence? How does France and Italy do it? The reality is that we do not need to be doing this for every industrial nation on the planet. IF such things are as necessary as you seem to think then the rest of the world needs to get a little more involved and we need to back off. Simply put, it is costing us to damn much and there are better things that we can be doing with those resources than standing up Middle Eastern sand pits that have no hope of a true and stable government.
Oh boy – I have rambled on, haven’t I.
It seemed implied by the way you were talking about how were likely to HAVE to step in again and reassert essentially the same government that just was removed. I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.Take your Egypt example you act as though us stepping in is NECESSARY for that nation to stabilize.
were did I say that?
Not always but I am not relying on this example. They are all over the place. We regularly back dictators or rebels. Saddam was OUR man until we decided that he wasnt. So was the Taliban. That turned out pretty damn bad and much of that hostility existed because they felt we abandoned them. What did we gain out of supporting Saddam? As far as I am concerned, nothing. It usually is a matter of the evil that you know. Personally, I dont see how we can tout the moral ideal of government for and by the people when we are across the planet trying to ensure the people give us the government that we want.
Look, the basic fact of the matter is that I believe we should be dealing with the nations as they have set themselves up rather than getting so damn politically involved in making sure that the government they have is the one that we want. When that fails we end up with a government that starts out overtly hostile to us after all we were supporting their opposition. I doubt that you think that this is the first example of that possibility; you are too smart for that.
When we go to war for the good of the people we fail. When we go to war to defeat the enemy we succeed. Further, we are involved all over the place and we do not need to be that involved in other nations.
I never claimed that we did worse by the world or that we ever act in anything but self-interest. Those were never my contentions. My contention is that it is NOT working out to our best interest. It hurts us and NOT only in the obvious ways. I think there is a reason that we are targets for terrorist organizations. I think it has a lot to do with having our fingers all over the planet in affairs that we simply do not belong in. Further, we have problems at home and are broke. We live in a nation that spends almost a third of its TOTAL expenditures on military. Do you think that is a positive? If not, where do you think all that money goes? It certainly is not because we have such massive standing forces here. It is directly related to the fact that we place out men and women in uniform all over the world in conflicts that range from outright war with America to civil wars within nations.Geo-political is and always has been a dirty biz. in that everyone jockeys for themselves overall.... the old saw is just as true today as it was when Clausewitz said it ( and before he said it as well;
"one being that war is the continuation of politics by other means."
And the reverse is certainly true.
Look, I am not going go deep into the weed here, its actually very simple- every nation is first- self interested, first and always, second, there is no reason why would should not be either. third, on balance since ww2, we have imho been 'more good' and have imputed 'more good' than bad.
The rest of the world gets along VERY well internationally without doing anything even close to what we do. How does England and Germany exist without such a forceful and overbearing foreign presence? How does France and Italy do it? The reality is that we do not need to be doing this for every industrial nation on the planet. IF such things are as necessary as you seem to think then the rest of the world needs to get a little more involved and we need to back off. Simply put, it is costing us to damn much and there are better things that we can be doing with those resources than standing up Middle Eastern sand pits that have no hope of a true and stable government.
Oh boy I have rambled on, havent I.
we got involved in the greek civil war after ww2....we implemented the Marshall plan, we implemented the Berlin airlift.......we 'won' the cold war, the Warsaw pact countries, want to ask them what they think about Geo-political machinations that resulted in their becoming free societies?
Not very new News surfaced Eisenhower approved the over throw of the Iranian regime installing the shah....want to ask the average Iranian who they'd rather be living under now? The clerics or the shah?
simply put this isn't a game that ends...we fought proxy wars with the Russians for over 40 years, yes we've sppted some slimy characters along the way, we do now like Karzai, he threw an election, we know he did but we had to bend to the facts on the ground and leave him be....... todays hes "our son of a bitch" is tomorrows goat and so it goes and thats how it always goes*shrugs* .............you can't get a little pregnant bro....it never ever ends.
It seemed implied by the way you were talking about how were likely to HAVE to step in again and reassert essentially the same government that just was removed. I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.
Not always but I am not relying on this example. They are all over the place. We regularly back dictators or rebels. Saddam was OUR man until we decided that he wasn’t. So was the Taliban. That turned out pretty damn bad and much of that hostility existed because they felt we abandoned them. What did we gain out of supporting Saddam? As far as I am concerned, nothing. It usually is a matter of the evil that you know. Personally, I don’t see how we can tout the moral ideal of government for and by the people when we are across the planet trying to ensure the people give us the government that we want.
Look, the basic fact of the matter is that I believe we should be dealing with the nations as they have set themselves up rather than getting so damn politically involved in making sure that the government they have is the one that we want. When that fails we end up with a government that starts out overtly hostile to us – after all we were supporting their opposition. I doubt that you think that this is the first example of that possibility; you are too smart for that.
When we go to war ‘for the good of the people’ we fail. When we go to war to defeat the enemy we succeed. Further, we are involved all over the place and we do not need to be that involved in other nations.
I never claimed that we did worse by the world or that we ever act in anything but self-interest. Those were never my contentions. My contention is that it is NOT working out to our best interest. It hurts us and NOT only in the obvious ways. I think there is a reason that we are targets for terrorist organizations. I think it has a lot to do with having our fingers all over the planet in affairs that we simply do not belong in. Further, we have problems at home and are broke. We live in a nation that spends almost a third of its TOTAL expenditures on military. Do you think that is a positive? If not, where do you think all that money goes? It certainly is not because we have such massive standing forces here. It is directly related to the fact that we place out men and women in uniform all over the world in conflicts that range from outright war with America to civil wars within nations.
The rest of the world gets along VERY well internationally without doing anything even close to what we do. How does England and Germany exist without such a forceful and overbearing foreign presence? How does France and Italy do it? The reality is that we do not need to be doing this for every industrial nation on the planet. IF such things are as necessary as you seem to think then the rest of the world needs to get a little more involved and we need to back off. Simply put, it is costing us to damn much and there are better things that we can be doing with those resources than standing up Middle Eastern sand pits that have no hope of a true and stable government.
Oh boy – I have rambled on, haven’t I.
we got involved in the greek civil war after ww2....we implemented the Marshall plan, we implemented the Berlin airlift.......we 'won' the cold war, the Warsaw pact countries, want to ask them what they think about Geo-political machinations that resulted in their becoming free societies?
Not very new News surfaced Eisenhower approved the over throw of the Iranian regime installing the shah....want to ask the average Iranian who they'd rather be living under now? The clerics or the shah?
simply put this isn't a game that ends...we fought proxy wars with the Russians for over 40 years, yes we've sppted some slimy characters along the way, we do now like Karzai, he threw an election, we know he did but we had to bend to the facts on the ground and leave him be....... todays hes "our son of a bitch" is tomorrows goat and so it goes and thats how it always goes*shrugs* .............you can't get a little pregnant bro....it never ever ends.
Yet we mock the conspiracy theorists......
we got involved in the greek civil war after ww2....we implemented the Marshall plan, we implemented the Berlin airlift.......we 'won' the cold war, the Warsaw pact countries, want to ask them what they think about Geo-political machinations that resulted in their becoming free societies?
Not very new News surfaced Eisenhower approved the over throw of the Iranian regime installing the shah....want to ask the average Iranian who they'd rather be living under now? The clerics or the shah?
simply put this isn't a game that ends...we fought proxy wars with the Russians for over 40 years, yes we've sppted some slimy characters along the way, we do now like Karzai, he threw an election, we know he did but we had to bend to the facts on the ground and leave him be....... todays hes "our son of a bitch" is tomorrows goat and so it goes and thats how it always goes*shrugs* .............you can't get a little pregnant bro....it never ever ends.
Yet we mock the conspiracy theorists......
How does that connect to what I said ?conspiracy Theories aren't always bad or crazy some are solid supposition based on assumed facts judged by incidents that have several indicators That can standup as logical theory.
We belong on the world stage we just should not be treating like a place to constantly play war. I am positive that we can trade and discuss matters of international politics or law without blowing something up every damn day.
Yet we mock the conspiracy theorists......
How does that connect to what I said ?conspiracy Theories aren't always bad or crazy some are solid supposition based on assumed facts judged by incidents that have several indicators That can standup as logical theory.
When people aren't told the whole truth they make shit up. Like the Syrian WMDs. We're not going to attack Syria for any WMD use. It's a cover--people are figuring this out. The UN claims that gas was used by rebels too
and the biggie is----WTF are we doing arming groups like Al Qaeda ? People have had enough of this shit and you know what ? It's their taxes that are paying for it.
it depends on what you're addressing...foreign policy is the executive branches patch....and if for example obama does what he did like not not conforming with the war powers act ala Libya, congress will have to deal with it....they didn't do much then ...so, I doubt they will if he evokes say a no fly zone etc. now....
I'll make this point one more time- obama doesn't have a real FP....he started with the idea that he had to atone or make amends to the world for our 'past' because America apparently is not and has not been a force of good, but one that threw its weight around and needed to step back, ( example- his hostile policy vis a vis Israel) now, thats not a judgment, just a comment on his policy, the problem with that is it isn't a policy, shit happens as we see, so hes lost.
What he and say carter didn't understand till to late is we have to employ self interested FP, and like it or not- thats part of the job, when you don't you watch has other world actors make their moves and we play catch up becasue we have neutered ourselves. Pre- world war 2 sitting back may have been an option, since then its not.
Example- watch, we will almost certainly have to come down on Al Sisi and the generals side in Egypt, in effect, we will just be returning to Mubarak Egypt minus Mubarak and all thats happened since we threw him under the bus, and what will happen as to live lost and chaos will have been for what exactly? Zero. Same with the shah vis a vis Islamic clerics running Iran ..Obama picked up where Carter left off in this sense because his world view was limited to the belief that we were the reason international tumult occurred ..the world doesnt stand still because we opt, to opt out .
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.
Pre- world war 2 sitting back may have been an option, since then its not.
Why is sitting back not an option any longer? Sure the world doesn't stand still. But who cares if it doesn't. We trade with who ever is in power. We should not seek to control others, nor who they choose to put in power.
We belong on the world stage we just should not be treating like a place to constantly play war. I am positive that we can trade and discuss matters of international politics or law without blowing something up every damn day.
No, apparently we can't discuss international politics and law without blowing something up every day. Look at what is ACTUALLY going on! We do blow things up every day, or threaten to, because we want the monopoly on violence that governments, that police forces are determined to have.
We mean to be the ones to say what kind of weapons can be used, and poison gas is definitely not on the menu.
Assad can kill a million people, just not with poison gas, because then it gets normalized all over the world.
Gives war a bad name......
Reuters, today 8/25
Syria offer to show chemical attack sites 'too late': U.S.
By Mark Felsenthal and Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON - A U.S. military response to alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria appeared more likely after Washington dismissed the Syrian government's offer to allow U.N. inspection of the sites as "too late to be credible."
************************************************************
This means the US will strike, of course. We're saying we've already made up our minds that Assad gassed people, or at least we mean to make an example of him, even if he didn't.
It doesn't matter WHO gets punished, after all -- it matters that poison gas not get normalized into the arsenals of the world. They are all pretty useless over there, so who gets cruise missiled doesn't really matter: the lesson matters -- don't do that, naughty, naughty.
Pre- world war 2 sitting back may have been an option, since then its not.
Why is sitting back not an option any longer? Sure the world doesn't stand still. But who cares if it doesn't. We trade with who ever is in power. We should not seek to control others, nor who they choose to put in power.
I think I can answer that, and in agreement with Trajan.
Since WWII we have assumed the role of world policeman (for important countries and events, the Congo and such don't count) for a simple reason that has nothing to do with spreading The American Way.
It's because twice, in rapid succession, the world fell into the worst world wars ever in the history of humankind, killing tens and tens of millions each time, and both times we got dragged into them like it or not, kicking and screaming, and if we tried REAL hard to stay out, they simply attacked us (Pearl Harbor) and declared war on us (Hitler, the same week).
Now all that's starting up again, looks like to me. We would sure rather stop it short than have to stop it yet, yet again after it's raging everywhere!
I don't have a good feeling about it being stoppable at this point, by this lackluster and rather unintelligent administration, but that's just me.
