Good summary, but it details our foreign policy problems in the region. We need to stop worrying about which leaders may or may not be friendly to our interests. We should instead worry that the leaders are the ones that a) are supported by a majority of the people in the country and b) don't violate basic human rights.
Of course worrying that the leader is simply slightly better than candidate 'b' instead of actually good is how we select our own leadership, so why should we be surprised when that is the policy they support abroad?
Call your Congress people and the White House and tell them NO WAR!
Good summary, but it details our foreign policy problems in the region. We need to stop worrying about which leaders may or may not be friendly to our interests. We should instead worry that the leaders are the ones that a) are supported by a majority of the people in the country and b) don't violate basic human rights.
Of course worrying that the leader is simply slightly better than candidate 'b' instead of actually good is how we select our own leadership, so why should we be surprised when that is the policy they support abroad?
Good summary, but it details our foreign policy problems in the region. We need to stop worrying about which leaders may or may not be friendly to our interests. We should instead worry that the leaders are the ones that a) are supported by a majority of the people in the country and b) don't violate basic human rights.
Of course worrying that the leader is simply slightly better than candidate 'b' instead of actually good is how we select our own leadership, so why should we be surprised when that is the policy they support abroad?
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.
