So How is Obama Doing With Syria Policy?

Dammy said:
Well if Obama can't run on his foreign policies, he can run on his domestic economic agenda! Oh wait...
Click to expand...
Russian arms shipment to the government of Syria? Will it be enough to balance out the American shipment of arms to the rebels? (Not "America" itself because it will have done it's dirty work through other organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda) - wonder where the missing Libyan MANPADs will show up?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Russian arms shipment to the government of Syria? Will it be enough to balance out the American shipment of arms to the rebels? (Not "America" itself because it will have done it's dirty work through other organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda) - wonder where the missing Libyan MANPADs will show up?
Click to expand...

Ask Obama, he can blame Bush then. He certainly won't take any responsibility for his failed foreign policies. His leadership is, well, rather laughable.
 
I love watching you guys conspiracy theory each other out. No prize for the winner of course, but still fun just the same.
 
Glaucus said:
I love watching you guys conspiracy theory each other out. No prize for the winner of course, but still fun just the same.
Click to expand...
It would only mean assuming they still do what they've always done. It's probably not too sane to imagine that we are living in a miraculous fluffy bunny age when these sorts of things no longer happen (except from "bad" governments) and that we are always told the truth now.
 
I hear what you're saying, but there's a certain amount of irony to all this. Both the far left and far right wingers talk about a shadowy "elite" class that pulls all the strings, but instead of doing anything about it tend to just fight amongst themselves over the identity of that shadowy elite. In a way, that's the strongest evidence right there that there is a shadowy elite, but at the same time it's laughable that the ones who are "smart" enough to see through all the lies and bullshit are also the ones that just can't do anything about it because they're up to their eye balls in partisan mudslinging. This is why I believe it's counter productive for Occupy supporters to bash the Tea Party and for Tea Party members to bash Occupiers. Let's not forget that the capitalists and the communists had to work together to bring down the fascists.

As for Syria, I believe the situation is a lot more complex than just a Russia vs America proxy battle. Syria certainly has a lot of foreign players involved, but at the same time there's also a real internal battle going on.
 
Glaucus said:
I hear what you're saying, but there's a certain amount of irony to all this. Both the far left and far right wingers talk about a shadowy "elite" class that pulls all the strings, but instead of doing anything about it tend to just fight amongst themselves over the identity of that shadowy elite.
Click to expand...

I'm not too worried about that. The fighting is secondary. The first stage is building the acceptability of talking about them. For years the PR campaigns have been aimed at ridiculing such talk. If you try to trace the mechanisms of power, no matter how vaguely, you are equated with people who believe that aliens are talking to their teeth with sub-ether radio waves. Even up into the 50s it was not as stigmatised and was a fairly normal part of political theory.

Simply taking the idea mainstream, even though we disagree on who the "elites" are or which ones are on what side, we are at least opening the discussion. If such discussion becomes widely acceptable it will cause uncomfortable changes for our owners and this is perhaps reflected in the increasing desperation and rush to implement more and more draconian laws to suppress dissent.

Talking about what was forbidden is the first part of the process. We can disagree about the details for now. We'll figure out that part later.

This is why I believe it's counter productive for Occupy supporters to bash the Tea Party and for Tea Party members to bash Occupiers.
Click to expand...
The Tea Party attracted a lot of people who were already Tea Party aligned - that was the intent. It tapped into a meme that was already going around in libertarian circles. Many of the libertarians recognized the artificial Tea Party for what it was at an early stage - an astro-turf usurpation of their genuine movement. Others who joined noticed later but, while maintaining their Tea Party identity have marched with Occupy. Occupy is a larger movement than just a bunch of leftists. Libertarians and Tea Partiers are in open dialogue despite the media's attempt to delineate sides. Part of this is the Occupy movements deliberate attempt to remain amorphous and set no platform other than social justice.

As for Syria, I believe the situation is a lot more complex than just a Russia vs America proxy battle. Syria certainly has a lot of foreign players involved, but at the same time there's also a real internal battle going on.
Click to expand...
Yes there is an internal battle going on and it is being exploited. Without the current exploitation it would be a much less bloody battle. Many social groups are active trying to advocate for change but a very small group of people are planting bombs and shooting people. Unfortunately it's the violence that gets the attention (because that's what it's there for). Syria is very important to Iran and the Western powers and Russia (and more quietly China) all know that and China and Russia don't want Iran to fall into US hands. It's the last big oil resource in the Middle East that is still independent.
 
@Glaucus,

further to what I said about the acceptability of such talk ...

When men attempt to amass such stupendous capital as will enable them to suppress competition, control prices, and establish a monopoly, they know the purpose of their acts. Men do not do such things without having it clearly in mind.
Click to expand...
-President William Taft, 1911

and let's not forget Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech warning about the Military Industrial complex circa 1961, President Andrew Jackson's opposition to central banking. Concentration of resources and control were recognized as dangers to a free society. These days it's just the will of the infallible markets and anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist or liberal anarchist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top