http://news.yahoo.com/un-syrian-forces-killed-tortured-256-children-214918815.html Syrian forces torture and kill children... kinda puts a little pepper spray into perspective, doesnt' it?
Where is Obama and the compassionate Europeans to help like they did in Libya? Oh that's right Syria has little oil and therefore the human rights of their people don't matter.
I for one, would support hitting Asaads forces/placements with drones. If america officially backs the protests with drones Asaads regime will crumble several times faster than Gadaffi`s. People have known about the torturing for months, hell, i remember CNN doing a report on a 12 year old boy more than 6 months ago, that had been tortured to death and had his body thrown onto his parents doorstep because they father was helping top fund protests. Asaad and hiss cronies need to burn.
LOL Honestly man, even with Libya's oil we didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). That was all the Euros on that one. All I can say is France better pay us for the bombs we sold them! If they default I say we should appropriate half their military equipment back to America for target practice, the UK I'll let slide on Lend Lease.
Sad how the right wingers are such hypocrits they blame Obama for supporting Nato in Libya and blame Obama for not intervening in Syria. Of course, you know if he did intervene in Syria, the would complain as well.
What a ridiculous statement. So now as long as we are above rape of children, then it is OK? Using the scum of the world as a benchmark is an idiotic arguement that the right wing makes over and over. So we didn't behead our prisoners, so torturing them is fine... Hey, when you stop striving to adhere to what makes America great and settle for just being better than terrorists and monsters, you have failed.
Wait a second there champ, Obama quoted the humanitarian abuses by Libyan forces as a reason for going, yet his hypocrisy in allowing this is simply ignored. Funny how that works. As CnC is he not obligated to continue the policy and standards he set? We have forces on the ground in Africa hunting down local rebels, but we leave this alone? There is a major disconnect in Obama's policy choices if this is left unanswered, but you guys give him a free pass. For the record, I didn't support the Libya mission, I don't support us having troops on the ground in Africa, and I wouldn't support action in Syria. That doesn't mean that the US should have a hypocritical foreign policy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be calling out Obama for not following the very policies he set forth and ignoring Syrian atrocities.
how ridiculous is this post? the fact that the OWS has been wallowing around in their own feces on public property for two months unmolested (except by each other) is PROOF of the greatness of this country....and it kills you on the Left. the whole hysteria over the pepperspraying incident is ridiculous and a lie: http://www.therightscoop.com/uc-dav...hey-provoked-police-in-pepper-spray-incident/
Its the exact reason you never base foreign policy and military actions on 'moral' grounds, every time you turn around something worse is happening somewhere. Weren't these the same idiots that whined about the US being a global police force? Yet they don't complain when we enter Africa to perform police like actions? Same for Libya? The hypocrisy is glaring, but they won't ever see it.
The US basically forfeit any moral authority related to torture under the Bush adminstration but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't address this in the UN Security Council. I would propose that first the US start living up to the ideals upon which America was founded and then we should oppose the tyranny of governments around the world including the acts of tyranny we've committed as well as acts of tyranny committed by our so-called allies.
Moral authority is a useless metric, it always has been. Now we have a clown in the White House pushing our troops into danger on moral grounds alone, and that sets us down a dangerous path, how can we not intervene in Syria? What's next? This idiocy will make us more of global policemen then we ever were before. In the past our foreign policy and military strategy has always coupled morality with long term US interests. This break from that pattern is simply inexcusable.
Obama only helped in Libya to kiss Sarkozy and Merkel's asses. He so badly want acceptance while they laugh at the little kid with the floppy ears.
US interventionism in the sovereign affairs of foreign countries has never been in the long term interests of the United States. We have a long history of supporting tyrannical regimes and terrorist organizations which has always come back to bite us in the ass. I do agree that President Obama and prior presidents should not be placing the lives of US soldiers at risk for political purposes. The US military should be exclusively about protecting the United States from foreign attacks and invasions. That is what the US military is for and it is not a tool for political agendas such as protecting the friends and former business associates of a president that are tyrants (e.g. the Gulf War). People should actually read the US Constitution where it specifically states that the government is to provide for the "common Defence... of the United States" and "Defence" is about protecting the nation from invasions and not about using the US military or government agencies such as the CIA to intervene in foreign affairs for political reasons.
I agree in spirit, but the Cold War demanded a different approach. I'm not saying we took the best approach, but we weren't in a position to sit back and be isolationist either. I still don't believe we have fully grasped or figured out our role in the post Cold War world. We were unprepared for what came of it, the globalization, the international terrorism, the international criminal enterprises, conflicts that erupted across the globe that had been in check when the world was bi-polar.
There is a fundamental difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist which many fail to grasp. Vietnam could be a prime example. When the French were defeated the nation was divided with democratic elections scheduled to take place for the re-unification. Because the US and S Vietnamese regime were afraid that they would lose the election they simply blocked it from ever taking place. If we assumed that the regime in N Vietnam would have won in a popular election then what we ended up with 20 years later was the identical result but at the cost of over 50,000 US soldiers lives and about 2 million Vietnamese lives. Our foreign policy resulted in no change ultimately except for the number of dead people and the virtual destruction of Vietnam. The world has always been "globalized" as trading routes have existed virtually spanning the world since the earliest recorded history. I really don't understand where people think this is something new. International terrorism originated with international interventionism. The two are inseparably linked and once again this goes back thousands of years and is not something new. International criminal enterprises have also existed throughout history and predominately they are generated by government actions. For example, alcohol prohibition in the 1920's lead to international smuggling of alcoholic beverages to the United States. The same is true today with the prohibition of certain drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Regional conflicts have also always existed but today we find that the nation most involved in these conflicts is the United States. How many people actually grasp that the US has been involved in conflicts which resulted in roughly 6 million innocent people dying since WW II. SIX MILLION PEOPLE! Obviously we weren't responsible for all of those deaths but we were responsible for being involved in the conflict that lead to those deaths. Certainly our involvement lead to more deaths than had we not been involved. Bottom line is that none of this is new and our actions border on insanity.
You're correct, but that just shows exactly what sort of idiot he is, they want our help with their crisis, they should be kissing our ass.
Many of our interventions were requested. Whether or not we should have intervened is rather pointless now. Its much harder to find examples where we forced our way in than it is to find examples of those that requested aid in some form or another. Globalization in the post-Cold War world was an opening of markets previously not available. We had very little trade with any communist countries in terms of commercial goods during that time. Couple that with technological advances, in transportation, computers, communications, and there was boom that was simply impossible in the past. That is what fueled the modern form of globalization. For the first time in history there was virtually no barriers. Prior to that you empires, which controlled markets of their colonies, then the bi-polar divide, this was actually something new. Anyway, I never claimed any of these ideas were new, only that we were ill prepared to face them.
The real problem, as I see it, is that 200 years ago we knew how to address them but then we apparently forgot those lessons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entangling_alliances http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html
Nuclear weapons sort of changed that, plus the perceived threat of communism spreading globally and rapidly under the Soviet banner. Of course we know now that was never the case, as outside the Warsaw Pact other communist countries were not simply Soviet pawns.
Hypocritical, inconsistent, contradictory, reactive instead of proactive - that's what you get with this administration's unprincipled foreign policy. I'm surprised Hillary Clinton hasn't jumped ship by now...
When we actually address the numerous countries where human rights abuses are occuring it appears that overall the Obama adminstration has been one of non-interventionism and that Libya was an exception to prior precedent as opposed to establishing a precedent.
We used military force in Libya, we have troops on the ground in Africa, he's escalating and leaving himself little room to avoid Syria.
The United States has military bases in something like 150 foreign countries but actual military interventionism has always been selective and limited. I am opposed to any military interventionism and believe that we should withdraw all US military forces from all countries but at the same time I see no fundamental difference in US foreign policy between the Obama adminstration and prior adminstrations. The United States should not be the "World Cop" as it is not a responsibility delegated to our government by the US Constitution.
We have two, absolute Obama interventions, in a very short time-frame, Libya and Africa, which leaves Syria for a bit later... What about Darfur? What about every other (*)(*)(*)(*)hole that has humanitarian issues? This guy is a freaking tool, at this point, we have to save them all, every freaking nation that has a 'humanitarian' issue or we weaken ourselves even more. This is the danger every realist has preached for decades on end, and only Obama was dumb enough to ignore such sound council...
