Syria

riotgrl wrote:

Let's phrase this a bit differently then. US foreign policy, for much of our history, has to do with "saving" others from "dictatorships" or other 'undesirable' forms of government, right? And this going all the way to the 1820s Monroe Doctrine and the resulting change over time in regards to the very clear reasoning behind profiting from European involvement in WWI and WWII. Is it really that far out of line with what polaris said? His reasoning makes it sound like tin hat conspiracy mentality but very clearly the US has chosen to intervene in numerous conflicts around the world, and while part of our motivation might be to protect other nations from rogue dictators, the very clear intent has been to 'protect' our economic interests. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to say that we might "favor" or "look the other way" in regards to perpetrating violence to suit our own needs.

you're being way too diplomatic ...

us foreign policy has always been about economic interests and imperialism ... frig - for the longest time - the biggest enemies were commies ... why? ... because people want to share? ... the gov't managed a pr campaign that convinced all americans that commies were evil and that you needed to wage wars against them ... how moronic was that ... we all know it was so they can protect their economic interests ...

all of latin america ... what's the reason behind your incursions into honduras and gautemala? ... and i'm kinda talking to everyone else here ... not you riotgirl ...

polaris_x wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

Let's phrase this a bit differently then. US foreign policy, for much of our history, has to do with "saving" others from "dictatorships" or other 'undesirable' forms of government, right? And this going all the way to the 1820s Monroe Doctrine and the resulting change over time in regards to the very clear reasoning behind profiting from European involvement in WWI and WWII. Is it really that far out of line with what polaris said? His reasoning makes it sound like tin hat conspiracy mentality but very clearly the US has chosen to intervene in numerous conflicts around the world, and while part of our motivation might be to protect other nations from rogue dictators, the very clear intent has been to 'protect' our economic interests. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to say that we might "favor" or "look the other way" in regards to perpetrating violence to suit our own needs.

you're being way too diplomatic ...

us foreign policy has always been about economic interests and imperialism ... frig - for the longest time - the biggest enemies were commies ... why? ... because people want to share? ... the gov't managed a pr campaign that convinced all americans that commies were evil and that you needed to wage wars against them ... how moronic was that ... we all know it was so they can protect their economic interests ...

all of latin america ... what's the reason behind your incursions into honduras and gautemala? ... and i'm kinda talking to everyone else here ... not you riotgirl ...

Sometimes diplomacy is called for Kinda like you get more flies with honey! Every war, every conflict has been motivated by economic gain. We are a capitalist nation and must defend said capitalism at all costs. Even our isolationist stance prior to WWI was all about economic motivation. Some call for a return to this stance but American isolationism is a lie, we have never been isolationist, at least in our economic policy and really this policy informs the entirety of our foreign policy.

U.S. senator McCain pictured with Syrian rebel kidnapper: paper

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John McCain was photographed during a trip to Syria with a man implicated in the kidnapping by Syrian rebels of 11 Lebanese Shi'ite pilgrims a year ago, a Lebanese newspaper said on Thursday.

McCain, a Republican, has been an outspoken advocate for U.S. military aid to the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad and made a short, highly publicised trip to meet rebel commanders in Syria three days ago.

He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.

However, he may have crossed paths with men linked to a group notorious in the region for kidnapping the pilgrims, the Daily Star said.

The paper said that as well as McCain's photographs with rebel commanders, one image showed the face of Mohammad Nour - identified by two freed hostages as the chief spokesman and photographer for the Northern Storm brigade that kidnapped them.

....

:fp: :fp: :fp:

I wonder who chided the US when they had their civil war?

Oh that's right, when one side stands up to another and they put the word war in there, somebody is going to lose. Then you start again. If they'd let these things play out then "we" wouldn't have to divide another population with lines on a map and tell them to behave with their neighbours.

How long until Obama drops the hammer on Syria? I'm guessing 2-3 weeks. Planes, missiles and troops are being sent to Jordan as part of a "training mission".

I'm guessing the only thing stopping them right now is Russia. But with nerve gas being used, the Kremlin may have to stand down.

war profiteering ...

I don't have kids but if I did I'd push them to become a master welder before sending them to college. Post education is a racket. Inflation included, it has tripled in cost since 1980.