Results 61 to 80 of 145
Actually the difference in foreign policy between the Roman Empire and the U.S is huge. Let me say that a bit 'tongue in cheek'. The Roman Empire only sought to maintain itself and opportunistically expand and then keep itself in stasis. The U.S is a CAPITALIST empire. Its end goal is, at the risk of sounding like Pinky and Brain, world domination. World domination of markets, world domination of raw materials. No one has been anywhere near as close as the U.S is today towards this end.
U.S foreign policy in the Pacific Rim area aren't the blustering of that idiot Trump, but a calculated and extremely risky effort to provoke a premeditated war with China. Similar to the way Germany sought to provoke a war in 1914 against Russia before they became too strong to contain. The question is what will China's next move will be. They need only 5-10 years before they reach military parity with the U.S in the East Asia theater.
The anti-war movement was politically weak, but that doesn't mean it was pointless or inevitably weak.
For one thing, the initial large protests broke the idea that the war was unquestionably supported (and showed that the consensus was in Washington and London, not amongst the broader population. Prior to these protests the US was still in a situation where the only acceptable popular expression of opinion was a US flag on a suburban SUV. The anti war protests broke the post 9-11 atmosphere.
The problem was that the movement never got past the Democratic Party who barely had to break a sweat getting ahead of the movement. They "broke" further development of the movement by successfully counter posing war with "reasonable (run by Democrats) war" because of general (if different) weaknesses of liberals (tied to the system so unable to offer alternatives) and the left (unable to wage popular campaigns that can inspire people to fight for an independent option).
Unfortunately we are In the same place but for a much more "confusing" situation. Any anti war sentiment, left to inertia, will likely fall into an anti-trump mode in the short-term and other segments might fall into a crude anti-imperialism that views Assad or Russia as the lesser-evil.
The point of anti-war/imperialism is always more or less aimed domestically. The weak links in terms of ruling class arguments in the US, I think, would be the right's hypocrisy around migrants/refugees as well as a generation-long "war on terror" supported by both parties as well as the same excuse Russia uses for its imperial actions and domestic repression.
Solidarity isn't all that possible because there isn't a domestic force capable of providing any real aid or mass strikes etc at the moment. But if people mean identification, then that's not a bad starting point. Islamophobic arguments were not uncommon in the broader anti Iraq-war protests and groups, but it may be easier, post Arab-spring, to push back against this if a movement develops.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dont think we should look at syria like iraq, the situation is more like libya. Which I did not see many anti-war protests over. I didn't see many protest against US involvement in Tunisia or Egypt either. Atleast not compared to the Iraq war, I think the largest was a couple thousand people, in Bamako of all places.
The US created alqueda, they have fought hand in hand against every left wing socialist government in the middle east. They promote radical jihadism and even printed children's books to teach kids the most radical violent interpretation of Islam imaginable. So their performance against their old allies is irrelevant.
Most importantly we should remember that assad is backed by far right nationalists, Trump doesn't want him going anywhere he said so himself dozens of times back when obama was considering intervening after the Ghouta massacre. Why would Trump protest US intervention after 1400+ die with sarin gas but then blow up an airport because the same Syian government used the same weapon to kill less than 100?
well the syrian communist party says to support assad so if we are just going to promote solidarity with whoever waves around a hammer and sickle we should support assad who is the leader of the (still technically socialist) baath party. Who was supported by the USSR
Which might be fine if there was a soviet union to support, but there isn't we have China thats all, and other than them selling a few more missles to Assad I dont think they will get involved. While assad is not really supported by China or Russia, they will continue to use him to exert influence in the region. Syria is not an imperialist power, therefore it will become subject to one. I dont really see the difference between a puppet state organized by one imperialist or the next.
That is one of the worst parts about neo colonialism it does not allow for proper development. Syria is empty, less than half of Syrians are still there. Under normal circumstances Turkey or some other neighboring power would've invaded along time ago and declared Syria part of their territory. Instead its a power struggle between governments on the other side of the earth. Nobody involved shares a border with Syria. They are all just competing for which nations wealthiest will be able to profit from them.
normally I would say support the people who are fighting for a regional power to unite people regardless of race or national origin. Unfortunately the only people doing that is ISIS. I dont really see any difference between Assad regime and ISIS, other than one being sunni and the other being shia. I dont think israel sees much of a difference either, since neither recognize its existence
Libya was *easy* for NATO -- they were able to do that one *quickly* before a mass consciousness could form to express opposition to the proxy carve-up of the territory for multinational corporate oil rights. (There was also that bloodthirsty mood whipped up against Ghaddafy.)
But we *did* see protests and a solid popular position against punishing Syria in 2013 for the Ghouta attacks when it was far from clear that the perpetrator was Syria:
---
Those were part of the Arab Spring proper (not a 'color revolution'-type revolt instigated from without, as was attempted on Assad by the CIA, riding on the *coattails* of the genuine Arab Spring international protests).
The U.S. had its 'Occupy' movement more-or-less in parallel, for whatever that was worth.
---
No, it's *not* irrelevant, because we can clearly see the U.S. national identity through its current, ongoing foreign policy positions -- much pivoted *instantly* in 2013 around the Western response to the Ghouta attacks, where, for the first time, the U.S. had to take open responsibility for the monster it created (ISIS), even though this policy shift conflicted with its legacy of backing the Islamic fundamentalist groups that it (along with Turkey and Saudi Arabia) was indirectly supporting militarily up to that point.
This latter contention of yours is dubious -- you may want to provide some references here.
Trump *had* a hands-off, 'isolationalist' policy regarding Syria, but has since, recently, been trumped by the Democratic-aligned 'deep state' apparatus / faction:
---
Yes, this is geopolitics, unfortunately.
Here's a current news headline:
US to Russia: Abandon Syria's President Bashar al-Assad
Aljazeera.com-Apr 11, 2017
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...110327774.html
---
You're making the common mistake of equating *all* nations as being the same in this regional proxy war and proto-world-war.
Remember *this* part -- ?
Can you really equate a democratically elected leader (Assad) and Syria's international ally, Russia, with NATO and its recent rampage of destruction through the Middle East -- ?
---
True. It's an international *proxy* war, not an internal 'civil' war.
And please recall who attacked Syria *initially*. (See the section about the CIA, above.)
You sound like you're *defending* Israeli intervention, and ISIS.
You're unable to make qualitative distinctions between NATO, Syria and Russia and Iran, and ISIS -- this is far too casual and facile on your part.
No to the U.S. Bombing of Syria! U.S. Hands Off Syria!
[EmergencyResponseforUSAttackonIranorSyria] NO TO THE U.S. BOMBING OF SYRIA! U.S. HANDS OFF SYRIA!
This is the content of a new leaflet from the March 19th Anti-War Coalition. Your comments are welcome. If you want hard copies for distribution, please let us know. [email protected]
NO TO THE U.S. BOMBING OF SYRIA!
U.S. HANDS OFF SYRIA!
The U.S. bombing of Syria on April 6 must be opposed as a criminal act.
Why call it criminal?
# 1. Syria has never attacked the U.S. The U.S., under international law, including the UN Charter, which the U.S. has signed, has no right to attack Syria.
# 2. The U.S. bombed for no legitimate reason. The Trump Administration claims the government of Syria used poison gas against civilians. Thet have presented NO evidence to prove this. Let’s remember that the government and corporate media spread Big Lies before, such as claiming there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The evidence that is available about the source of the gas attack in Syria on April 4 is that the U.S.-backed rebels in Syria had poison chemicals in a storage building. (http://yahoo.com/news/russia-argue-u...115906393.html).
There is evidence U.S. backed rebels used poison gas previously in Syria, such as in the notorious attack in 2013 (http://dailymail.co.uk/ news/article...ds-troops.html).
We should be clear that the U.S. missile strike on Syria on April 6 was not the act of a lone criminal named Trump. Democrats and other Republicans have enthusiastically applauded the U.S. bombing. Among them is Hillary Clinton, who has long advocated bombing airfields in Syria. Bernie Sanders is not condemning the attack; instead he is raising concerns about whether it is the best step to gain domination over Syria.
Trump represents a section of the ruling class-- the billionaire and millionaire owners of banks and corporations who funded and supported the outrageousTrump campaign for president, to “make America great again.”
Trump was chosen to deal with the challenges to the U.S. capitalist empire. Its competition has been strengthening, its production has been dropping, and people are opposing U.S. imperialism in the U.S. and all over the world.
One big problem the U.S. has in Syria is that the Syrian government has regained many key towns from the U.S.-backed rebels, and peace talks for a peaceful political solution were moving forward. This has been a blow to the U.S. plans for regime change and its desire to dominate Syria because of its important position in the Middle East, and to undercut the influence of Russia and Iran in the region.
The U.S. ruling class decided years ago that it would attack Syria in an all-around way and not allow the Syrian people to exercise their right to self-determination. (See, for example, http://counterpunch.org/2015/09/17/t...rian-conflict/). And so, under Obama and the Democrats, the U.S. underhandedly attacked Syria using proxies to overthrow its democratically-elected government. The U.S. government has admitted it funded, supplied, and trained “rebels” including el Qaeda offshoots. Under Obama, the U.S. began to put U.S. boots on the ground. In recent weeks the U.S. has inserted a more than a thousand additional U.S. troops.
The U.S. ruling class is so desperate it is willing to risk provoking a war with Russia, which has answered the call of the Syrian government for assistance.
Why is the U.S. government continually interfering in the Middle East?
The U.S. capitalist empire cannot tolerate any independence from the U.S., such as the government of Gaddafi in Libya or Iran or the government of Syria.
There are oil and oil pipelines in the Middle East that the U.S. corporations want to control, and the Middle East is strategically important to the U.S. ruling class.
But, we the people do not have to stand for any wars for U.S. empire, spreading misery and creating millions of refugees. We have a responsibility to stand up against these crimes being committed in our name, and do this with mass demonstrations and by interfering in ruling class plans (such as youth refusing to join the military).
At the same time we need to work for a future in which we have a genuinely democratic government of, for, and by the people—an anti-war government, a government of peace and justice.
Let us take even more time from our busy lives to make sure we have discussion with our friends and neighbors and all people of conscience about all these issues facing us, especially the escalating crimes of the Trump regime.
No wars for U.S. Empire! Get the U.S. war machine out of the Middle East NOW!
Fight for an anti-war government in the U.S., a truly democratic peace and justice government!
This leaflet is from the
March 19th Anti-War Coalition
[email protected]
4.12.17
Libya started by the situation in Tunisia, now I know the CIA is pretty good at organizing protests but they didn't organize any self immolations. Libya the country is less populated than the city of los angeles, he couldve easily stepped down instead he started spreading rumors about jews starting riots by passing out hallucinogens. Im sure he accused the marxists as well. Qaddafi and Assad are anti communists.
---
Okay but the CIA also supported the Assad regime, there were also protests called the Damascus spring against assad in 2000. there are alot of people that want to see the downfall of the assad regime other than hillary clinton
---
The official record still says assad was responsible for the ghouta attack. only russian and syrian governments say different the Un, human rights watch, the EU everybody claims it was assad
Trump was fervently against the syrian war, even claimed Hillary Clinton would get into war with Syria
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ria/100154318/
I dont know what the Democratic-aligned 'deep state' apparatus is sounds scary but ive never heard of it. Trump wont get into Syria he wants assad to stick around, now why he blew up an airport is anyones guess but as you can see assad is still here. Fascists love Assad when talking about Syrian immigrants, "support assad so we can send them all back" there's new propaganda going around about "setting up safe zones inside of syria" whatever that means but of course their not above nuking the whole country. Ive seen nazis promote the alawites as more "racially pure" than the arabs, ive seen them use pictures of blond bikini clad beachgoers under the headlines Assad's syria, vs women in hijabs under obama's ISIS, ive seen them hailed for standing up to the jews etc.
---
Assad is not democratically elected he ran unopposed with 99.7% of the vote, he won the election in the sense that he made sure he wouldn't suffer a military coup if he took power after his father, the King of saudi arabia is more democratically elected then assad. they have been under martial law for over 50 years, they gave asylum to nazi war criminals to help their military learn how to torture protesters better, there's nothing democratic about it
Nobody attacked Syria because it shouldnt exist, its a neo colonial state drawn in the footprint of the ottoman empire, the borders were drawn perfectly to make sure its as ungovernable on its own as possible
of course not lol you know me I would prefer to turn the whole middle east into Hoxha's Albania, but either way it doesn't matter the USA wont do anything against assad so we can go back to supporting the FSA now
Yes, there was discontent with Ghaddafi, but the sentiment got co-opted by *monarchists* there, who themselves got co-opted by Western / NATO interests over Libya's oil:
Criticism[edit]
Protest in Belgrade, Serbia on March 26, 2011 against military intervention in Libya
Protest in Minneapolis, United States on April 2, 2011 against US military intervention in Libya
Some critics of Western military intervention suggested that resources—not democratic or humanitarian concerns—were the real impetus for the intervention, among them a journalist of London Arab nationalist newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the Russian TV network RT and the (then-)leaders of Venezuela and Zimbabwe, Hugo Chávez and Robert Mugabe.[218][219][220][221] Gaddafi's Libya, despite its relatively small population, was known to possess vast resources, particularly in the form of oil reserves and financial capital.[222] Libya is a member of OPEC and one of the world's largest oil producers. It was producing roughly 1.6 million barrels a day before the war, nearly 70 percent of them through the state-owned National Oil Corporation.[223] Additionally, the country's sovereign wealth fund, the Libyan Investment Authority, was one of the largest in the world,[224] controlling assets worth approximately US$56 billion,[225] including over 100 tons of gold reserves in the Central Bank of Libya.[226]
Accusations of imperialism on the part of NATO and the West were voiced by many leaders of states that had traditionally aligned themselves with the Communist bloc and subsequently Russia, including: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (who said he supported the rebels but not Western intervention[221]), Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (who referred to Gaddafi as a "martyr"[220]), and President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe (who referred to the Western nations as "vampires"[219]), as well as the governments of Raúl Castro in Cuba,[227] Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua,[228] Kim Jong-il in North Korea,[229] Hifikepunye Pohamba in Namibia,[230] and others. Gaddafi himself referred to the intervention as a "colonial crusade ... capable of unleashing a full scale war",[231] a sentiment that was echoed by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin: "[UNSC Resolution 1973] is defective and flawed...It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades."[232] President Hu Jintao of the People's Republic of China said, "Dialogue and other peaceful means are the ultimate solutions to problems," and added, "If military action brings disaster to civilians and causes a humanitarian crisis, then it runs counter to the purpose of the UN resolution."[233] Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was critical of the intervention as well, rebuking the coalition in a speech at the UN in September 2011.[234] Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, despite the substantial role his country played in the NATO mission, also spoke out against getting involved: "I had my hands tied by the vote of the parliament of my country. But I was against and I am against this intervention which will end in a way that no-one knows" and added "This wasn't a popular uprising because Gaddafi was loved by his people, as I was able to see when I went to Libya."[235][236]
Russia's foreign broadcasting service, RT, has postulated that NATO intervention may have been motivated by Gaddafi's attempts to establish a unified federation of African states that would use the gold dinar as its currency and demand that foreign importers of African oil pay in gold.[218] Despite its stated opposition to NATO intervention, Russia abstained from voting on Resolution 1973 instead of exercising its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council; four other powerful nations also abstained from the vote—India, China, Germany, and Brazil—but of that group only China has the same veto power.[237]
Moreover, criticisms have been made on the way the operation was led. According to Michael Kometer and Stephen Wright, the outcome of the Libyan intervention was reached by default rather than by design. It appears that there was an important lack of consistent political guidance caused particularly by the vagueness of the UN mandate and the ambiguous consensus among the NATO-led coalition. This lack of clear political guidance was translated into an incoherent military planning on the operational level. Such a gap may impact the future NATO's operations that will probably face trust issues.[238]
---
Here's some proof, regarding Libya:
---
---
Yes, but the problematic there is that opposition to Assad plays right into the hands of geopolitical imperialism, plus the opposition itself tends to be reactionary anyway:
---
On the contrary, there's very good empirical evidence for the final determination in 2013, that Syria was *not* responsible for the attack:
---
Definition in political science[edit]
Deep state has been defined in 2014 by Mike Lofgren, a former Republican U.S. Congressional aide, as "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process."[23]
In his 1956 book The Power Elite, C. Wright Mills outlined the origins of power and its development in the United States. Mills' conclusions were that by the mid-twentieth century, American power had become concentrated into three major divisions; the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and the Pentagon. Prior to President Eisenhower's coinage of the term 'military-industrial complex', its existence and impact on American politics and governmental policy were well developed and recognized by Mills.
In The Concealment of the State, professor Jason Royce Lindsey argues that even absent a conspiratorial agenda, the term "deep state" is useful for understanding aspects of the national security establishment in developed countries, with emphasis on the United States. Lindsey writes that the deep state draws power from the national security and intelligence communities, a realm where secrecy is a source of power.[24][/quote]
---
Our 'deep state' at work, considering the link you just provided to Trump's tweets that show his past, *contrary* stance (expressing non-intervention in Syria).
---
Interesting, but 'the [worldwide diaspora of] Jews' is not perfectly equivalent to the State of Israel, which is what that reference *means*, more-accurately.
Revolutionary leftists are / are supposed-to-be anti-Zionists, which is *not* being anti-Semitic.
---
Noted.
Sounds plausible, but you may want to provide a reference on this one.
Not funny if you're attempting humor here -- the FSA is practically synonymous with the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
I would have preferred Trump's relative 'isolationism' regarding Assad, but that official position ended with the recent chemical attack and the U.S.'s knee-jerk (prevailing deep-state) response to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%...icot_Agreement
are you saying you support assad? not just against US invasion but against the FSA, the YPG, even the PKK?
Well, the YPG and PKK have been fighting on the side of the Syrian state, or at least *parallel* to it, against ISIS.
The FSA has been like a 'political loophole' -- a so-called 'moderate' faction of the anti-Assad opposition that has enjoyed the receipt of Western armaments, which are then funneled to the fundamentalist ISIS-type groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_S...labeled_groups
Also:
---
Syrian presidential election, 2014
Syria
← 2007 June 3, 2014 Next →
Turnout 73.42%
Nominee Bashar al-Assad Hassan al-Nouri
Party Ba'ath Party NIACS
Popular vote 10,319,723 500,279
Percentage 88.7% 4.3%
Reflecting on Syria
http://www.investigaction.net/en/reflecting-on-syria/
Reflecting on Syria
12 Apr 2017 ANDRE VLTCHEK
Ms. Yayoi Segi is based in Beirut, Lebanon, and she has worked in Syria for almost 3 years. She is extremely passionate about the country, which she admires and tries to support in her position as an accomplished specialist in national education development.
Entrance to half destroyed Umayyad Mosque in Aleppo
She agreed to share her collection of personal photos from Damascus, Homs and Aleppo.
I asked about her impressions regarding Syria and its people, and she replied, frankly:
“Syria is not what the mainstream media wants us to believe it is. One has to see it, to understand. Seeing is believing! It is an extraordinarily exceptional country. All that we have been told about Syria and its people is a lie.”
And what is the war doing to the country?
“The war… it is devastating the country. Life is of course tough now, but it never stopped; it definitely goes on. Electricity is cut often and water supplies are limited, but still life goes on. People endure; they even socialize. Syrians are very humble, very caring, warm and gentle people. They like to joke. They believe in their nation, in themselves; they are truly remarkable.”
In Damascus, life goes on…
Yayoi has been literally dedicating her life to the Syrian nation. She is ‘building schools’ there, and she is defending the nation whenever she goes. She is drawn to the Syrian people and she admits that she is philosophically close to them. She says:
“It is extremely important, what goes on in Syria, especially on the ideological front in highly politicized field of education, because ideology shapes education, and vice versa.”
“Even in the time of crises that was implanted from outside, the Syrian people still maintain tremendous sense of solidarity towards those whose lives have been shattered for decades, mainly Palestinians.”
She recounts her practical experience, which clearly illustrates the big heart of the Syrians:
“In Damascus, there is a waiter working in my favorite teashop. He is a Palestinian refugee who has been living in Damascus for a very long time. Every time I meet him, he gives me the most beautiful smile. I ask him how is he doing? And he says, “Alhamdulillah, all is fine”. He has three kids, all have enough to eat, and all are going to school, thanks to the help from the Syrian people.”
All this is happening despite the war.
Little but determined and patriotic
Ms. Segi is greatly impressed by how educated and confident the nation is:
“Syrians are the most hospitable, gentle people. When we meet, we never talk about the war, the conflict. It is a tremendous civilization… They always talk about their life, the future. They discuss their poets and their thinkers. People in Syria are very well educated. They know what is going on, on our Planet. Despite what some parts of the world have done to them, they are extremely respectful and polite to everybody. I never heard them speaking ill of others. They appreciate that you come and work with them, and they are confident.”
Foreigners, some foreign organizations and certain powerful countries are often bossing around Syria. As if terrible damage done by the outsiders would not be enough. Ms. Segi is enraged about this fact:
“There have been so many seminars, conferences and meetings on Syria, yet the Syrian people are very rarely invited. All these events are ‘about them’ but without even inviting them, and without listening to them.”
But Syria is standing, and in the field of education, as in the several other fields, it is progressing and even improving, despite the hardship and devastation that is injuring this proud nation. Ms. Segi recalls:
“Once the Minister of Education told me: ‘we are not some nation of beggars. We never beg!’ The Minister and three other top educationalists are true intellectuals, and all of them were educated in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern block countries.”
“On the education front, the system was one of the best in the region, before the crisis began. Now, despite more than 6 years of horrendous war, the system is still standing and strong. Syrians know exactly what they want, and they have the capacity to implement their aspirations. Like in Aleppo; after the victory, the government immediately moved in and began opening schools.”
School in Aleppo – still smiling despite the pain
All photos by Yayoi Segi
About Authors:
Yayoi Segi is a Japanese education policy and planning specialist with close to 20 years of international experience working for a multilateral organization. Since 2014, Yayoi has been involved in education sector humanitarian and development work, in the Arab region with focus on Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora”and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.
Source: Investig’Action
Follow us on Facebook
©Copyright investig'action 2015
-
ShareThis Copy and Paste - See more at: http://www.investigaction.net/en/ref....Z2SsnxuO.dpuf
the ypg was created to fight Assad after he massacred kurds at the start of the war. ISIS and other groups like al nusra control territory, just as the Kurdish rojava forces do, which are right next to eachother, the kurds have not been fighting alongside the Syrian army anymore than they have been fighting alongside al queda, in fact Syrians claim they are in bed with them. The Kurds themselves have seen massive US involvement funding, training and cooperation since before the first gulf war pre-dating al queda, if there is any US backed soldiers that we are to dismiss just because they are affiliated with NATO or the west it should be the Kurds.
the FSA was a loose collection of rebels. Syria is a small country most intelligence reports suggest they no longer exist. There's dozens of small groups mostly led by a tribal leader but im sure that some of the groups like al-nusra and these turkomen tribes who walk the line between ISIS and the rebels have received weapons by the US, especially since recruits have switched sides in the absence of the international support against assad that they expected to receive after Libya Egypt Tunisia etc. But that doesn't mean there aren't people for a secular democratic Syria.
the only reason why NATO didn't intervene was because of Russia, not because they wanted to create some neo feudalistic system of organized chaos to help drill for that sweet sweet oil
Incorrect. The YPG predates the 2011 NATO invasion of Syria:
---
Why would one 'dismiss the Kurds' -- ??
Just because they've received military support from the U.S. / NATO to fight ISIL -- ?
---
F.y.i.:
---
Yup.
The Western countries *do* want 'some neo feudalistic system of organized chaos to help drill for that sweet sweet oil'.
I understand this sentiment but the soviet union has collapsed, there is no competing power. Assad is/was supported by the west. The country of Syria is a creation of the west. Supporting the Syrian state and the existing government is supporting the west. It is supporting colonialism. without foreign power supporting the syrian state it cannot stand. At one point Syria in its almost completely blood filled history was allied with the soviet union, but that doesn't matter now.
Let me ask you this if Assad was being supported unconditionally by the USA funded armed etc. would you still support him? Do you think USA should?
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of what's *been* going on, the attempted destabilization of the whole country from without, as usual, by the U.S. and/or NATO -- done far more successfully in Libya.
You make it sound as though the U.S. empire is now uncontested globally with the ending of the USSR, when that's really not the case -- we're currently seeing 'Cold War II', mainly between the U.S. and its allies, and Syria-Russia-Iran-North-Korea-and-China on the other side, with Europe's international identity being pulled in opposite directions between these two main geopolitical factions.
During NATO's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, circa 2001-2005, yes, but definitely not since the Arab Spring (2011).
---
No, that's too facile and inaccurate, especially considering the U.S. empire's ongoing neocon 'shit list' (my terming) for foreign policy objectives:
---
This is absurd since supporting Syria *against* Western predations would *eliminate* imperialist / colonialist interventions, by definition.
I myself won't try to make such a sweeping judgment one way or the other, but it should suffice to say that Syria should be able to have its own international allies (Russia), the same as any other country, like those in the *Western* geopolitical faction.
The U.S. empire's neoconservative foreign policy would *never* be supportive of Assad and/or Syria in any kind of self-determining way -- this is a *very* contrived, unrealistic, imaginary scenario.
I *do* continue to think that the U.S. should 'clean up its own mess' in the Middle East regarding the proliferation of ISIS, which would mean more Assad-favorable U.S. military efforts in the SDF coalition, but I don't really think that that's going to happen, again due to overall neocon foreign policy, in the neocolonialist direction, and actual recent results -- numerous civilian killings from U.S. bombings.
and I suppose on the opposite side is USA Israel and al queda? your starting to sound like a russian intelligence officer in training. Why not throw in brazil south africa and india while your at it?
there is no European identity, there is barely a western European identity. you cant even get them to speak the same language. if anyone is tearing them apart its themselves. How's Brexit going is Scotland a separate country yet?
So what happened? did they change their minds? Maybe your suggesting the American election had something to do with it?
What's a neocon? you mean the trotskyists? who is and is not a neocon and why?
if we were talking about north korea maybe? This is Syria the assad family is an outright monarchy they're worth billions Bashar al-Assad is wealthier than Trump
North korea is a self liberated government inside an existing empire. they are not a ethnic minority puppet government installed by foreign powers to govern over the majority. The alawites were illiterate cave people before the french showed up and decided they could use them to control the sunni arab majority. Then they arbitrarily drew the Iraqi-syrian borders, they actually changed it slightly at the last minute to place Mosul in Iraq because they recently discovered oil there, in between drawing the borders and finally announcing them.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/1035998/full_content
The assad's are secular in the sense that they are religious minority being propped up by western governments, and if they ever lose power, them and the Alawite Shiite minorities face execution by the masses. That's half the reason why the Sunni fled Iraq after the Shiites were given control "democratically". To avoid their own slaughter, and every rumor and conspiracy theory among iraqis suggested a miniature holocaust by the shiite iraqi forces and the US government. Now assad the shiite is allowed to stay in power? Meaning every sunni south of Turkey and north of suadi arabia faces execution. And you wonder why they are joining al queda and all these so-called jihadists groups? The Assad family should've stepped before they committed the Hama massacre the fact that they are still in power at all, is a testament to the power of neo-colonialism
there's that word again... I dont know who you think these people are but they sound awesome
I'm curious as to what you think that would entail, what actions do you think the USA should take in order to 'clean up its own mess'?
It's what I just said:
Just because I want to keep up with what's going on in the world -- ? (Harsh.)
Those countries are *peripheral* to the geopolitics just stated -- remember the 'BRICS' -- ?
---
You're using the context of some kind of vague 'social group' -- I'm speaking in terms of geopolitics and world economics.
It's just a web search away, if you really want to find out. (Maybe you're anticipating some kind of further-balkanized 'Scexit' -- ?)
---
No on the latter part -- take another look at the neocon shit-list. It's now active U.S. foreign policy.
No, not Trotskyists -- the U.S. nation-state.
---
That's not enough for you -- ? North Korea and its nukes is becoming a litmus test for Trump in office.
I think you're saying that the wealth of this-or-that personage is *spurious* to matters of class struggle -- I happen to think that details of geopolitical relations are worth knowing about, even if they're ultimately intra-ruling-class matters.
So your point is that North Korea is more politically 'pure', independent, and self-determining than the typical colonized situation as seen in the modern Middle East -- ?
This latter part is incorrect since the Western hegemonic (neoconservative) policy has been calling for the *removal* of Assad.
I'm not / never claiming that it's an *easy* situation, but any internal politics should be handled *internally*, by the Syrian people themselves, and not from *without*, by the Western powers in their own neo-colonialist interests (as in Libya).
I think what you're describing here is the sea-change change-in-fortunes following the U.S.'s getting rid of their former CIA asset in Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
Good point -- so do you think these Sunni vs. Shiite rivalries are all 'intramural' now, and should be *ignored* within the context of geopolitics -- ?
(I can appreciate the initial 'grassroots' impetus to do Arab-Spring-like overthrows of local elitist rulers, as from the FSA regarding Assad in 2011, but *that* initiative, however, quickly became too militarized and played into the hands of the now geopolitical proxy war from the international Western powers -- NATO.)
---
So you'd side with the Muslim Brotherhood, then -- ?
---
Yeah, see the entry / history of 'PNAC', above. Also:
---
I just said it -- more actual anti-ISIS incursions as a part of the SDF coalition, but I don't think the U.S. would do that *cleanly*, since it *hasn't* been doing it cleanly (too much collateral damage, etc.).
Please recall that Assad's regime is at least nominally secular, which makes for a better, more-preferred civil society than if Islamic fundamentalists like the Islamic State / caliphate were in power to enforce Sharia law over everyone.
because you sound like putin
brazil and south africa have as little to do with syria as they do with north korea. They just happen to be russian trading partners
Trump nuking the entire korean peninsula for shits and giggles makes sense, him trying to harm one hair on assad's pretty hitler mustache does not
I'm saying a billionaire family that has ruled a nation for over 50 years is not a socialist democracy, his kids, his cousins kids, his second uncle twice removed are all billionaires
https://www.juancole.com/2016/04/syr...evolution.html
atleast their borders were drawn by koreans
Western hegemonic policy has been calling for influence with or without Assad they work well with the democratic government of Turkey and the monarchy of Saudi Arabia
they are not being handled internally under the syrian government.... are you telling me the people in this tiny green section should control the affairs of the entire country because the Russians need a naval base?
the initiative is still there as long as shiites control Syria for no reason it will be there.
do you mean the sunnis, the majority of syria?
its not secular, the only reason its not a full blown iranian theocracy is because its too weak install shia islam across the whole country. Its not even nominally secular since the constitution says only a muslim can be president. only in the most twisted reformist sense can this government be declared secularism. Even the israelis prefer an ISIS caliphate to Assad.
So you're doing what, then, here -- profiling, stereotyping.
---
Yes, exactly -- you're reinforcing my point *for* me, that they're peripheral to the *major* geopolitical factions.
Hmmmm, maybe you should explain *how* such 'makes sense'.
And yet here's the actual history of *anti*-Assad Western efforts:
---
Of course -- I don't consider Syria to be any kind of 'socialist democracy'.
---
Fair enough.
---
Agreed on the latter part, but in recent history (late '90s onward) the West has had Syria on its shit list.
Here's from post #74:
---
Of course not, because governments *don't* act in the interests of the people.
If the people / workers of Syria controlled the country maybe such foreign basing arrangements would be changed by them.
---
So you'd prefer to see an open-ended, never-ending religious sectarian conflict between dethroned Sunnis and now-favored Shiites -- ?
---
Okay, now say the words 'I, willowtooth, fully support the Muslim Brotherhood.'
This is quite thoroughly secular compared to outright Sharia law:
---
And what's the significance of this to you -- ? That you're inspired by the geopolitical opinions and positions of the Zionist / adventurist / imperialist State of Israel -- ? (If you're talking about the *people* of Israel you should provide some data reference here.)
Another reason, motive on why millions of US voters keep voting for capitalist imperialist pro-war-mongers (Like Obama, Hillary, Bush, Donald Trump, Democrats and Republicans) is something that Napoleon Bonaparte said. Napoleon Bonaparte who was very smart, claimed that humans are more motivated by feelings of fascist-competitive country-narcissism xenophobic fascist-nationalism than by economic, physical, social, psychological and emotional progress. Maybe Donald Trump destroying Syria and being a fascist super-hero is more important for millions of US voters and US citizens, than personal economic and general progress.
I think that inferiority complex, low-self-opinion, depression, sadness and feeling very little in about 75% of the US population (which is caused by capitalism, because capitalism only benefits about 20% to 25% of USA,) is what leads ma ny voters to vote for xenophobic fascist-nationalists like Democrats, Republicans, Bill Clinton, Obama, Bush, Hillary and Donald Trump (who are all really the same, because even Obama had a fascist xenophobic ultra-nationalist language). The philosopher Schopenhauer claimed that people who feel depressed and suffer from inferiority complex usually support nationalist fascists. While people who feel good, do not really need to rely on fascist xenophobic politicians.
I think that the whole US ruling class is aware, it knows, that millions of americans suffer from inferiority complex (caused by a life of very little opportunities, no opportunity to study in college, no access to health care, no dental care, no progress at all. And that life lived by the majority of US citizens right now produces depression, inferiority complex, feeling low. And the ruling class is aware that when people feel low, and empty, they are in need of a fascist xenophobic nationalist hero that can get them out of their low-life mental state. And that's one of the main reasons of why fascist-nationalists rise to power so easy in societies with deep economic, mental and physical problems
