I wonder how the United States would react if Russia intervened militarily in the Mexican theater in an attempt to stop the barbaric slaughter of innocent lives along the US border? Do you think they would be justified just because the US is sitting on one hand in one arena while supplying the enemy with weapons with the other?
Wouldn’t they have a moral right (sic) to intervene? What do you think the neo-cons and the looney left would do about it; “Put It All On The Table” like the Mormon prophet and his minions would do with the Iran/Israel issue, or slowly pound them to pieces like Dubya or Wing Nut did and are doing are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan or perhaps how Johnson and Nixon did in Vietnam?
Perhaps if we educate ourselves first and then put reasonable, educated, straight talking people (yet to be seen) in office once more they won’t kill him or her like they did Lincoln, McKinley, King, Jack Kennedy and his brother Robert.
I vote Democrat and voted for Obama and will do it again [grudgingly]. But my VERY FIRST THOUGHT when I saw this was, “The Obama administration leaked this on purpose. Wouldn’t be the first time.” I’m not sure if you’ve noticed this about Mr. President, but he is far too savvy to do anything on accident. Gaffes are rare and drama is low. Anytime something becomes “an issue”, I can’t help but to think it was done on purpose.
You mean, the thing that isn’t actually happening in reality? How does one stop that? As for Russian putting troops on the US border, try to see how that’s different from the US taking military action not on the Russian border.
Unsurprisingly, one of the ways we educate ourselves is by using actual citations to support claims we make instead of just spouting nonsense that’s counterfactual and then demanding that people believe us.
Because the Jews/Jehova’s Witnesses and British crown are conspiring to bring about a nuclear holocaust any day now, as you’ve said. Me… I’m not feeling all that rushed.
It is interesting that all of these Treaty-of-Versailles nations are rent by civil war? The guys who craved up the old Ottoman Empire mad a lot of mistakes, in the artificial nations they created. The same happened in Europe-it gave rise to WWI.
So, is Syria really a nation? I don’t think so.
I know Pinochet had many people killed and tortured. Like a lot of other dictators. But the reports I read about what happened in Syria went above and beyond (or maybe not. I was way too young in 1973 to read day by day reports of what was happening. It might be that it’s more abstract for me regarding Pinochet).
Anyway, suffice to say that at some point I quit reading reports about Syria, dreading what I would find written there. And in any case, I didn’t think until the revolution that Assad was such a butcher. But the apple doesn’t fall long away from the tree, I guess.
Well, I’m actually inclined to make allowances for Assad, because he’s fucking terrified, gotta be – not only for himself, but for his whole Alawite ethnic-minority, that might get bloodily ethnic-cleansed if his government falls.
That’s actually a good point. Many of these dictators are/were actually quite tolerant. Minority groups in Egypt are terrified now that the extremists are in charge, and they have good reason to be.
And I really wouldn’t care to be a Berber or a (black) African in Libya these days, either.
The Muslim Brotherhood are (1) not quite in charge yet, really, and (2) not extremists. Perhaps you are thinking of Al-Nour. The two are not on speaking terms. The MB are more like the Islamic equivalent of Europe’s Christian Democrats; not that that’s a good thing to be.
Nitpick: Other than the (black) Africans, who have indeed been taking it on the ear, practically all Libyans are Berbers; though the majority are Arabized culturally – somewhat (but they’d still look damn furrin’ to, e.g., a Saudi Arabian). Same with every North African country to Libya’s west, it’s all Barbary (a/k/a Maghreb or Tamazgha).
I didn’t realize that the Christian Democrats forbid women from being leaders, called for executing homosexuals, insisted that men should be allowed to beat their wives “so long as they break no bones and spill no blood”, called for executing Christians who converted to othe religions, insisted that all Christians have the phrase “ex-Christian” stamped on their ID cards to enable discriminatio against them, and insist that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and should be slaughtered as such and declare Christians who blow schoolchildren in Sbarro’s into kosher hamburger “Shahids” who will be sent to paradise where they will serviced for eternity by nubile, willing virgin girls.
Moreover, I must say, if you don’t consider people like that extremists, just who do you consider extremists?
For example, I assume you don’t consider Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremists.
