Why Americans are Saying 'No'

I knew someone would eventually post some anti-Semitic bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in this thread.

 

Please explain, how and in which way .. is it "anti-Semitic" ?



...

...

 

I think you need a slight change to that. We typically intervene when we THINK it will serve our interests. But the clear fact is that we are horrible at guessing such things and more often than not it either does not affect our interests at all or it just makes things worse. Often at great cost to us. We get less bang for the buck than any country on Earth from our foreign "policy". It's really expensive in terms of financial cost, human cost and reputation and we get next to nothing out of it. Iraq is just the most recent and glaring example. More than $1 trillion borrowed to fight, up to 100,000 dead, millions displaced, more ruin to an already bad global reputation, and we got literally nothing (positive) in return.

 

It's always like this, though, isn't it? We don't want war, intially. Then some "big event" happens that fills us with shock or rage and we begin to change our minds. And if it comes down to it, they'll just say f**k it, and engage anyway.

Count on constant bullcrap until we actually engage...

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/syria-bull(*)(*)(*)(*)-tornado/f4f7bd1ae409bd4e9ecd024cd0bb81471a33a869/

Isn't this the same for most of the recent presidents?

LMAO

 

If no one wants us to "Play the game"...cool with me. I prefer we stay away from nutjobs who are bent on killing each other.

So the world needs to stop expecting us to do something, and then (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing that we did.

 

Which is time , you guys learnt to be less gullible at election and keep your political leaders under some sort of control, instead of empowering them to control you and your lives.

Go on. let's see America showing the rest of the world the path to true Democracy .

... (wink)

 

AIPAC cant spell diplomacy.

That's why

 

What we are dealing with here is a bunch of leaders trying to figure out how to use the US military to accomplish national security objectives, while at the same time having their plans transparent to all, because of the media. But the media isn't able to offer foreign populations the same transparency, because all countries are not as democratic as the US. So foreign dictators have the luxury of conducting war or diplomacy under any pretenses they like (at least to varying degrees, depending on the dictator), while keeping their public misinformed, whereas the US leadership must conduct its operations in the open. It's a serious disadvantage, and the problem (which I admit, I don't know how to solve) is at the root of the lack of US military success (at least in obtaining political objectives) since Vietnam, imo.

 

Actually, I think the world would like us to stop doing something. It is the US (at least the Government, until they convince the people as well) that always seems to want to intervene.

 

Exactly. If the goon squads in Assad's Alawi mafia, the Quds Force, Hezbollah and al Qaeda want to kill each other I'm all for it. No need for us to get involved when our enemies are at each other's throats.

 

10 yrs of war.
Tired, tired, tired.
Tired of blood sucking lying politicians beating their chests thinking they are being helpful. We all now know, they are only helping themselves.
PS - NO good can come of it. NONE>

 

As far as I can tell, there's been almost no media counterargument to moving into Syria. It's basically one, huge, ongoing PR push for support of the engagement.

 

I think everyone in this country knows that the push to strike has more to do with Obama saving face than anything. That is why Americans are saying no.

 

There is some.

One of Obama's strongest allies, MoveOn.org, has gone so far as to campaign against the president's plan. On Monday, the big progressive organization launched its latest stay-out-of-Syria salvo, a television ad that urges members of Congress to vote no on the administration's call for military action.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...amas-toughest-audience-his-diehard-supporters

 

That's what you have done in "the Occupied Territories", is it not?

And then because of those actions by the US ... the reason given in an October 2004 video, edited by the major US media channels .... some nutters decided to fly aircraft into a pair of your tall buildings, and invited your population to "Ask yourselves why".

Which you never did -- of course.

 

What about the UN Charter that you signed. Are you intent to toss it out of the window?

If so, have the chutzpah to withdraw from the World Body.

 

I've sat with Arabs across campfires across the Middle East. I am absolutely certain of the reason those Saudis flew those planes into those buildings. It was their view of Islam. I was not surprised in the least when I learned all hijackers were Saudi. All one would have had to do was spend a few months talking to a few of them. Simple. Your theory for 9/11 that you seem to imply here is ridiculous and complex.

 

You can leave me out of that. I don't vote for Republicrats. Like with most things, people here will take too long to figure it out. We are a dumb and gullible country by and large.

I hear ya.

 

The US Total Public Debt Outstanding is now US$ 16,738,567,425,782.46. It seems to have risen 20% in a very short time.

OK, OK, I am being cynical. You make a good point, Stekim ... no malintent.

 

Of course it does. But that doesn't mean that it is a noble ideal.

The Apartheid regime of my mother-country used the same argument. So did the thuggish military juntas in many Latin American countries. And the rabid Indonesians regarding East Timor. And the Serbians in Bos-Herz. And the 'Murkins vs the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. And .... and .... and ....

NOOOO ...protecting the nation, when the "nation" is busting world standards, pacts and laws, is just soooo not a good idea. It makes nutters fly into tall twin buildings.

 

I guess we watch different news....most of what I am seeing is both sides telling Obama to o to He!!

 

I repeat my question ... unanswered by you..

Do you intend to screw with the UN Charter. If so ... get out of it and take your veto with you.

 

I've stated my stance for a year now on the UN question in various other threads. Have the vote. Make the Russians veto all of the assistance to Syria resolutions, and comply. If WMD's are used on a wider scale, or more severe atrocities begin to change world opinion on intervention in the future, the blood will be on Russia's hands, and they will lose credibility.

 

Freeing people is a legitimate reason. The proliferation of democracy is a legitimate reason.

 

The alternatives were worse. And I think they would have flown planes into our buildings regardless of whether or not were invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

We did not invade Japan, but that did not prevent Pearl Harbor. It is naive to think that everyone will leave you alone if you leave them alone. The real world does not work that way.

- - - Updated - - -

The UN is worthless...it legitimizes non-democracies. There is nothing at all egalitarian about it.

The US is simply in a better position to exploit it than most other nations. But if the US left, the UN would still be just as worthless.