|
Kana -> RE: What makes it a war crime? (9/9/2013 2:18:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kana
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
What we would be giving up in not backing the ideal behind the founding of the United States is hope. We do this in the hope that future of human civilization is bright whereas diplomacy is about patience, yet one must also have courage.
Yeah and that idea was that America would be a shining beacon of light for the world to see and admire, be that biblical "City on a Hill."
They said nothing about coming to your country and shoving our light down their throats.
If anything, they said, beware of foreign entanglements.
And again, nobody,and I mean nobody, in the rest of the world believe this is about hope or any other propaganda. They see us far far clearer than we do. it's about oil, it's about O's ego, it's about trying to establish geopolitical control over the middle east, people who hate us with just cause and trust us not one whit.
The matter of oil is a non-trival one. It cannot be dismissed out of hand as insignificant. A leader needs an ego. Without an ego you cannot lead. It comes with the territory. What is wrong with geopolitical control over the middle east? These people just hate period. Why did they say beware of foreign entanglements? They said it because they knew the future. They did not see the demise of the United States, however. What they saw is that there would be challenges ahead of us. Foreign entanglements are often perilous. The day would come when we would rise up and assume a dominate global position.
When you realize how low our enemy is it could justify those measures Obama has been criticized for. Threatening to harm his daughter? That is a request to be put out of your misery.
I'll go you one better.To me, a leader doesn't just need an ego, he needs to be a dick. Name me an effective leader who isn't, or at least, when he needs to be.
Addressing some of your points:
1-Ego is fine. Dragging an unwilling country into a war for no other reason is beyond stupid. Almost no allies are backing O, the people don't want it, Congress doesn't want it, there ain't no loot, so why do it? Then there's the minor matter that it's coming out that, "Oooh, well we don't have actual proof, we only have circumstantial evidence."
Plus the White House is saying one thing and Kerry another. These fuckers can't even get their internal story straight and we're supposed to take the word.especially after the whole Iraq WMD debacle? Riiiiiiighto, old chap.
Then the Russians are saying the Rebels did it. Euro geopolitical analysts can't think of one reason Assad would rationally use chem weapons and suspect maye a rogue commander, maybe one siding with the rebels trying to lure us in.In other words, it's a fucking mess.
2-Nope. Oil is absolutely non trivial.But what if we took all this $ we're spending on stupid wars that piss people off and turn the world against us (And BTW, breed more poverty, more ignorance, more death and more terrorism)and did a Manhattan Project type deal trying to reduce our dependence on oil, don't you think that would be a much better political, economic, military and social use of the soft power?
Not to mention that, you know, we're Americans. We're don't see ourselves as the sort of people who just come in steal your shit,in this case a regions oil. We think we play fair, offer good deals, blah blah blah. We don't point blank take crap at gunpoint though. That ain't our style.
(Instead our Govt does it in the dark, assassinating Chilean leaders,overthrowing governments, killing democratically elected presidents (Mossadeq))
That won't happen.The people won't take it.
3-quote:
What is wrong with geopolitical control over the middle east?
Really? Really? You don't see a problem with this? You don't have an issue with the fact that we support dictators and oppressive regimes, that we send our children to the sand to die? That's no issue?
The problem is simple. To take control, we'd have to give em the Indian treatment, kill em all except a few % and send them off to reservations.
Fuck,colonization went dead in the 40's.It's proven to not be cost effective in the long haul.
4-quote:
These people just hate period. Oh come now. That's simply a racist comment period. And one,I should mention, that they could easily,and with much more moral authority,level at us.WTF are we to be always interfering in the internal politics of sovereign nations.In violation of the number one rule of international law, I might add. The question we need to be asking is "Why do they hate us so.?Not the French. Not the Brits. Not, most certainly not Canadians, but us. Could our policies over the last 100 years or so have something to do with this, ya think?"
Cuz we sure as fuck ain't innocent victims here. We did a whole lot, and then some, to create this situation.
Starting with our good chums the House of Saud funding madrassas and fundamental Islam,first as a bulwark against Nassar and Arab Nationalism, the against Iran and the Mullahs. Then there's our whole history of supporting the Shah.
Yeah, we have lots to answer for here as well.
5-As for foreign entanglements, I'm gonna be lazy and quote Washington's Wiki, cuz it's just so perfect;
" Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, and urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation. He argues these attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy. Washington argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Washington continues his warning on alliances by claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people."
6-quote:
Threatening to harm his daughter?
And what in the world makes you think wingnuts here aren't blogging the same thing about them. Let's see, we had Mossadeq killed, we targeted Quddafi and killed his kid, had Saddam executed on TV.We've slaughtered innocents with drone, done carpet bombing.
They threaten one person. We threaten 50,000. And that makes us better, how?
Now, am I defending their tactics? Of course not. But this is asymmetrical warfare and that's how it's played.
Again, getting back to the base point, why are we in Syria?
If it's WMD's, it should be a UN deal. After all, it's an International Treaty we're discussing here. A coalition should be doing something about it, not just us.
I'm totally cool with that.
But to be out there all alone, once again the worlds policeman,paying the cost in cash,prestige, good will, morals, values and basic human decency, yeah, I'm so not for that.
|
|
|
|
